IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13829 of 2009 Between: Maryala Tirumal Reddy & another. … Petitioners And The Principal Secretary, Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13829 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the police in interfering with the petitioners’ possession of land admeasuring 600 square yards situated in M.L.As’ colony, Banjara Hills, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a direction to respondent No.4 not to interfere in the civil disputes between them and the third parties. After notice in the writ petition was ordered, Kumari K.Deekshi Reddy, D/o. Sri K.V. Rameshwar Reddy filed WPMP.No.18975 of 2009 for her impleadment. By order dated 03.08.2009, this Court allowed the said implead application. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the affidavit filed by the impleaded respondent, it is stated that the property belongs to her, that the petitioners have been seeking to illegally interfere with the possession of the said property and that she has, therefore, given a report to respondent No.4 against the petitioners on 08.07.2009 and also on 12.07.2009. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the allegation that the police are interfering in the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.5 is incorrect and that the police never interfered in the civil disputes between them. Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that the petitioners are claiming the property in question without any semblance of right and that as they tried to trespass into the property highhandedly, respondent No.5 gave a complaint. In my opinion, the disputes between the petitioners on one side and respondent No.5 on the other are not germane for consideration in the present writ petition, as its scope is only confined to the alleged interference by the police and particularly respondent No.4, in the said disputes. Therefore, it is neither proper nor appropriate for this Court to delve into the rival claims of the parties regarding the ownership or possession over the property in dispute. Inasmuch as the police have maintained that they are not interfering in the civil disputes, the writ petition is disposed of by placing on record the said stand made through the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The parties shall be free to approach competent fora for appropriate reliefs with regard to the property in question. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.18075 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.06.2010 ES