THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.9850 OF 2010 Dated 28th April, 2010 Between: Budigam Lingamma …Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Huzurnagar Police Station and Three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.Annapuran Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP for Home The Court made the following ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent No.2 is interfering in civil disputes. The petitioner has pleaded that respondent No.4 is her son-in-law and placing reliance on a fabricated Will said to have been executed by the petitioner’s husband in favour of her daughter, who is the wife of respondent No.4, respondent No.4 has been making a false claim over an extent of Acs.2.27 gts in Survey No.183/6 of Kalluru Village, Nereducherla Mandal, Nalgonda District. In connection with the said dispute, the petitioner’s daughter filed O.S.No.153 of 2008 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, and the said suit is stated to be pending. When respondent No.1 allegedly interfered in the said dispute, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8536 of 2010, which was disposed of by this Court on 16.04.2010 with the direction to respondent No.1 not to interfere in the civil disputes. The grievance of the petitioner is that while respondent No.1 has stopped his interference in pursuance of the said order of this Court, respondent No.2 started interfering in the civil disputes. The petitioner specifically alleged that on 22.04.2010, the said respondent (though the petitioner referred in her affidavit as respondent No.1, which is an obvious mistake for respondent No.2) abused the petitioner in filthy language, threatening against the petitioner harvesting the crop by stating that she will be implicated in a false criminal case if she harvests the crop. In my opinion, when the dispute is subject matter of a civil suit, the police have no power or authority to interfere in such disputes. It would be grave constitutional impropriety if the police who are charged with the duty to protect law and order to interfere in private disputes between the parties over removal of crop. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is restrained from interfering in the dispute pertaining to the abovementioned property. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in future if respondent No.2 interferes in future. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.12682 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 28th April, 2010 vrn