IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19480 of 2004 Between: 1 Smt.Jatoth Mani, W/o.Late Harya, R/o.Maisiganditand Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar, Dist.A.P. 2 Sri Jatoth Sakru, S/o.Late Basya, R/o.Maisiganditanda, Amangal, Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.AP. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Dist.Collector, Mahabubnagar. 2 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Amangal, Mahabubnagar Dist. 3 Kethavath Pathni, S/o.Late Amru, R/o.Maisiganditanda, Amangal, Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:None appeared Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondents No.2: NONE APPEARED Counsel for respondent NO.3:Mr Penumaka Venkata Rao for Mr M.Rajesh The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare letter dated 03-09-2004 addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2, whereby the latter was asked to do the needful on the representation of respondent No.3 for providing police protection as illegal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard Sri Penumaka Venkata Rao, learned counsel representing Sri M.Rajesh, learned counsel for respondent No.3. There is a dispute in existence between the petitioners and respondent No.3 in respect of Acs.25.17 gts of dry land in Survey Nos.23/A, 23/AA, 24, 25/A and 25/A of Karkalpahad Village, Amangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Claiming to be ‘kabiz-e-kadim’, the petitioners obtained occupancy rights certiﬁcate under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). Questioning the said order, respondent No.3 ﬁled appeal under Section 24 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar. Pending appeal, respondent No.3 approached respondent No.2 for giving police protection against the petitioners’ alleged interference with his possession. As there was no response from respondent No.2, respondent No.3 evidently approached respondent No.1 and by the impugned letter, respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2 to “do the needful” on the request of respondent No.3. Having carefully considered the facts of the case in their entirety, I am of the view that respondent No.1 had no justiﬁcation in addressing such a letter as the one impugned in this writ petition. Serious disputes over the right to hold the property existed between the petitioners on the one side and respondent No.3 on the other. If respondent No.3 is in possession and the same was unlawfully threatened by the petitioners, the only course open to him is to approach the competent Civil Court and seek injunction. Respondent No.1 has no power or jurisdiction, whatsoever, to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, the impugned letter is quashed. Liberty is given to respondent No.3 to avail his remedies in the light of the observations contained hereinabove. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th November, 2008 vrn