ORDER This Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings, dated 20.06.2008, issued by the second respondent- Tahsildar, Dharmavaram, directing the Station House Officer, Dharmavaram, to consider the request of respondents 4 to 6 for grant of police protection. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father and father of respondents 4 to 6 are brothers. His father was in possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Acs.5.05 cents and Acs.5.85 cents in survery Nos.499-1 and 424, respectively, situated at Kuntur Village, Anantapur District. While so, respondents 4 to 6 filed O.S.No.203 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, against the petitioner and his family members seeking permanent injunction in respect of the property in question. Along with the suit, they also filed I.A.No.392 of 2003 for temporary injunction, which is still pending. 3. It is further stated that by suppressing the pendency of the civil suit, respondents 4 to 6 approached the first respondent for grant of police aid, and the latter, in turn, passed orders, dated 14.03.2008, directing the second respondent to conduct de novo enquiry and pass orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent referred the matter to the Mandai Revenue Inspector, and soon thereafter, issued the impugned proceedings, dated 20.06.2008, directing the third respondent to consider the request of respondents 4 to 6 for providing police protection. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent and sought for stay of the said proceedings, which was rejected on 30.06.2008. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice and providing any opportunity, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings directing the third respondent to consider the request of respondents 4 to 6 for providing police protection. Hence, this Writ Petition. The petitioner also filed reply-affidavit reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. The respondents 5 and 6 filed a counter-affidavit while admitting the relationship between them and the petitioner, denied the other averments. They stated that their father originally purchased an extent of Acs.5.85 cents in survey No.424 and was in continuous possession. After his death on 05.12.1976, being his legal heirs, they succeeded to the said property. After due enquiry, the Mandai Revenue Officer also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in their favour. They stated that their father originally purchased an extent of Acs.5.85 cents in survey No.424 and was in continuous possession. After his death on 05.12.1976, being his legal heirs, they succeeded to the said property. After due enquiry, the Mandai Revenue Officer also issued pattadar pass book and title deed in their favour. The land admeasuring Acs.5.05 cents in survey No.499-1 was assigned to the fourth respondent and pattadar pass book and title deed was also issued in his favour. 6. They also stated that during his life time, their father filed 0.S.No.89 of 1974 on the file of District Munsif, Dharmavaram, for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the father of the petitioner with regard to the property in question. The said suit was decreed on 29.10.1979. Thereafter, since the petitioner and his brothers were interfering with their possession, they made an application to the first respondent to direct the police to provide protection to them. The first respondent directed the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and grant police aid, if necessary. Therefore, the second respondent after due enquiry by proceedings, dated 20.06.2008, directed the Station House Officer, Dharmavaram, to consider the request. Since granting police aid to respondents 4 to 6 does not affect the rights of the petitioner, the second respondent did not give any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6. 8. Admittedly, there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 in O.S. No. 203 of 2003, and while the said suit is pending consideration, the second respondent issued the impugned proceedings. It is well settled that when a civil dispute is pending adjudication before the competent authority, the revenue authorities should not interfere with the matter. Therefore, the second respondent could not have issued the impugned proceedings, when the matter is pending adjudication before the civil Court, more so without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 20.06.2008, are set aside. In that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, dated 20.06.2008, are set aside. However, respondents 4 to 6 are at liberty to seek necessary orders from the competent civil Court. No costs.