JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing Rc.No.B/542/2011, dated 05.05.2011, of respondent No.2 and proceedings bearing Rc.No.B/542/2011, dated 12.07.2011, of respondent No.1. By the first mentioned proceedings, respondent No.2 has requested respondent No.4 to take action in accordance with law while stating that respondent No.9 holds title in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.17.23 guntas in Survey Nos.249/1 and 250 of Sarapaka Village, Burgampad Mandal, Khammam District. By the latter mentioned proceedings, respondent No.1 has requested respondent No.6 to provide police protection to respondent Nos.9 10, and 11. There is a heap of litigation between the petitioner on one side and respondent Nos.9 to 16 on the other, with regard to the above-mentioned land. For the present, it is unnecessary for this Court to refer to this litigation in detail. It will suffice to note that O.S.No.116 of 2011 filed by the petitioner against the private respondents herein for permanent injunction is pending in the Court of the learned Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam. An injunction order was granted on 14.07.2011 and that the same was vacated on 04.06.2012. Questioning the said order, C.R.P.No.2468 of 2012 filed by the petitioner is pending in this Court. The private respondents have filed O.S.No.146 of 2011 against certain third parties for permanent injunction in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem and secured an order of injunction on 10.06.2011. In I.A.No.243 of 2011 an order granting police protection was passed by the civil Court on 25.07.2011. In this background, the two impugned letters came to be issued by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. There is a letter, dated 12.07.2011, addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4, wherein this litigation in respect of the property in question is referred to some extent. In this background, the two impugned letters came to be issued by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. There is a letter, dated 12.07.2011, addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4, wherein this litigation in respect of the property in question is referred to some extent. Respondent No.2 has inter alia stated in his letter as under: In this regard, I have gone through the material evidence and revenue Records available are in favour of the pattedar and found that the tile on the land in the said petition is as follows: Village Sy.No. Extent inAc.Gts Name of the Pattedar Name of the enjoyer Sarapaka 249/1 6-38 Gandla Purnachandar Gandla Purnachandar Rao, S/o Late Papaiah Rao, S/o Late Papaiah Gandla Rathana Rao, Gandla Rathana Rao, S/o Late Papaiah S/o Late Papaiah Gandla Narasaiah s/o Gandla Narasaiah s/o Late Papaiah Late Papaiah Sarapaka 250 10-25 Gandla Purnachandar Gandla Purnachandar Rao, S/o Late Papaiah Rao, S/o Late Papaiah Gandla Rathana Rao, Gandla Rathana Rao, S/o Late Papaiah S/o Late Papaiah Gandla Narasaiah s/o Gandla Narasaiah s/o Late Papaiah Late Papaiah In his letter, dated 16.07.2011, respondent No.1 has referred to dismissal of W.P.No.32545 of 2010 filed by the petitioner and accordingly requested respondent No.6 to provide police protection to the private respondents. The main ground of attack to these proceedings in this writ petition is that in the absence of an order of injunction and a consequential order of police protection against the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no power or authority to order police protection. It is contended by Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the title over an immovable property. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the private respondents, submitted that in the flurry of litigation, the petitioner has lost before every forum and that injunction application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and in C.R.P.No.2468 of 2012 filed by the petitioner, no order has been granted by this Court. He further submitted that when the petitioner has been interfering with the possession of the private respondents without any manner of right whatsoever, criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and her family members right from the year 1993. He further submitted that when the petitioner has been interfering with the possession of the private respondents without any manner of right whatsoever, criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and her family members right from the year 1993. The learned counsel further submitted that taking into consideration the unauthorized interference by the petitioner and the various Court orders, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have issued the impugned letters. Except respondent No.6, no other official respondent has filed counter affidavit. In his counter affidavit, respondent No.6 has inter alia justified giving police aid to the private respondents on the strength of injunction order, dated 10.06.2011, in I.A.No.225 of 2011 in O.S.No.146 of 2011. From the facts narrated above, it is evident that the only issue that needs to be adjudicated in the writ petition is as to whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 have power or jurisdiction to order police protection. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue stated that a Division Bench of this Court in a writ appeal has recognized the existence of such power in the revenue officials in the agency area. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however, has not placed the order before this Court. In my opinion, an administrative functionary cannot exercise adjudicatory functions unless the Act under which they discharge their functions confers such powers on them. Power to grant police protection is inhered in the competent Courts in order to effectuate the orders passed by them. Such power is traceable to the inherent powers of the Courts exercising civil jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC. The constitutional Courts exercise such power either under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be. In the absence of any power conferred by the statutes, the executive functionaries cannot exercise such power. The quasi judicial powers conferred on the executive bodies by the extant Acts at best are primarily adjudicatory. Unless the provisions of the enactment expressly confers the power of directing grant of police protection, such functionaries cannot issue directions or make requests to the police to act in favour of any party. In the instant case, so far no order of injunction subsists against the petitioner. Similarly, no Court of competent jurisdiction has ordered police aid in favour of the private respondents and against the petitioner. In the instant case, so far no order of injunction subsists against the petitioner. Similarly, no Court of competent jurisdiction has ordered police aid in favour of the private respondents and against the petitioner. Even though respondent No.6 sought to justify affording of police protection by relying upon the injunction order, dated 10.06.2011, in O.S.No.146 of 2011, and the order, dated 25.07.2011, in I.A.No.243 of 2011, in I.A.No.225 of 2011, in O.S.No.146 of 2011, granting police aid for enforcing the said injunction order, admittedly the petitioner is not a party to the said proceeding. Therefore, the order granting police protection cannot be enforced against the petitioner. Having regard to the above findings, it needs to be held that the two impugned proceedings of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not sustainable in law and they are accordingly set side. This order, however, shall not be understood as this Court upholding the right of the petitioner to claim possession over the property in question as the disputes are pending before various Courts. The petitioner and the private respondents are entitled to work out their remedies according to law. Unless and until an order is passed by a competent civil Court, the official respondents shall not interfere with the disputes between the petitioner and the private respondents. Subject to the above observations, the wit petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of as infructuous.