ORDER :-At the interlocutory stage the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition is filed to set aside order dated 23-7-2005 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he requested respondent No.2 to take action against petitioner No.3 to prevent him from entering into an extent of Acs.3.36 cents of land in Survey No.492-2 of Bommajjapalli Village, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapur District. 3. Heard Sri K.Ram Mohan Chowdary, learned Counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for respondent No.1 and Sri K. Ramamohan Mahadeva for respondents 3 to 5 and perused the record. 4. The petitioners are inter-related. Petitioner No.1 was assigned an extent of Acs.4.96 cents of land in Survey No.492-2 on 16-3-1958 and petitioner No.2 was assigned an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in Survey No.495-1 on 12-2-1958 in Bommajjapalli Village, Kundurpi Mandal, Anantapur District. Respondent No.1 by order dated 10-6-1988 resumed the said lands to the Government and reassigned the same in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5. Questioning the said order, petitioners 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 18347 of 1989, which came to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal on 15-5-1999. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, by his order dated 24-9-2002 allowed the appeal and set aside the resumption and reassignment order passed by respondent No.1 and restored the lands in favour of petitioners 1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondents 3 to 5 filed a revision before the District Collector, Anantapur, on 6-11-2002 and also an application for stay. The District Collector, by his order dated 24-9-2002 rejected the stay application and the appeal is still pending before him. The petitioners claim that in pursuance of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, they are in possession of the said lands and in the said background respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. 5. In the counter-affidavits filed by the official and contesting respondents, the above-mentioned facts have not been disputed. The petitioners claim that in pursuance of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, they are in possession of the said lands and in the said background respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. 5. In the counter-affidavits filed by the official and contesting respondents, the above-mentioned facts have not been disputed. However, at the hearing Sri Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5, submitted that in pursuance of the order of resumption and reassignment, his clients are in possession; that when the petitioners illegally trespassed into the lands and took away the crop, respondents 3 to 5 gave a criminal complaint, on the basis of which a criminal case was registered; that simultaneously they approached respondent No.1 seeking protection and that, therefore, he passed the impugned order, which, according to him, does not suffer from any illegality. 6. Having carefully /considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that interference by respondent No.1 by passing the impugned order is beyond her function as Mandal Revenue Officer. It is not the case of respondent No.1 that the power to give direction to respondent No.2 to prevent one of the petitioners from entering upon the land is traceable to any of her statutory or administrative powers. Respondent No.1 is a Government Servant, who is required to act in accordance with the statutory or administrative powers vested in her. When there is a bona fide dispute between the two parties regarding an immovable property, such a dispute is required to be settled before a competent forum. 7. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that as on today the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, who set aside the earlier order of cancellation of assignments against the petitioners, stands in favour of the petitioners. If respondents 3 to 5 were already in possession by that date and the petitioners unduly and illegally sought to interfere, and dispossess them, they were not remediless. It was open to respondents 3 to 5 to approach the Competent Authority to protect their possession. However, in my considered view, respondent No.1 has no power and jurisdiction to direct respondent No.2 to prevent the petitioners from entering the land in dispute. 8. It was open to respondents 3 to 5 to approach the Competent Authority to protect their possession. However, in my considered view, respondent No.1 has no power and jurisdiction to direct respondent No.2 to prevent the petitioners from entering the land in dispute. 8. Sri Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5, submitted that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the Joint Collector, Anantapur, passed an order on 31.1 0.2006 protecting the possession of his clients; and that questioning the said order petitioners 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No.22581 of 2007. Sri K.Ram Mohan Chowdary, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the said writ petition this Court on 25-10-2007 granted interim suspension of the order of the Joint Collector, Anantapur and he furnished a copy of the said interim order at the hearing. 9. Since the dispute in this writ petition is confined to the legality and validity of order dated 23-7-2005 passed by respondent No.1, I need not delve into the said contentions of the learned Counsel. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, WVMP Nos.3154 of 2005, 98 of 2006 and 1285 of 2006 are dismissed.