IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.548 of 2009 Between: N. Upendra & others. … Appellants AND Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy Counsel for respondents 3-31: Sri D. Prakesh Reddy Senior counsel, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao and Sri K. Ravindra Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL (SR) No.548 of 2009 JUDGMENT:- (Per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 20.02.2009 in WP.No.19430 of 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The dispute pertains to 5300 square yards of land in Sy.Nos.358/1 and 358/2 (old Sy.No.329) of Kohe Moula Ali. The appellants, who claim to have purchased the property from the lawful owner, filed WP.No.19430 of 2008 feeling aggrieved by order dated 14.03.2005 passed by respondent No.2. The learned Single Judge, having taken note of the fact that the appellants have an alternative remedy of statutory appeal to respondent No.1, refused to entertain the writ petition by permitting them to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of passing of the order and further directing that if an appeal is filed within the said stipulated time, the same shall be entertained and decided on merits, without raising objection as to limitation. At the hearing, Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously contended that the order impugned in the writ petition cannot be sustained, because the property in question along with various other properties were released from the Court of Wards long back and in the several rounds of litigation launched by various parties, including the contesting respondents in the appeal, they were unsuccessful in convincing the Courts at various stages that the property continued to be in control of the Courts of Wards. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior counsel, Sri B.Adinarayana Rao and Sri K. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel representing their respective private respondents in this writ appeal submitted that the appellants have no title to the property and that at any rate the order of the learned Single Judge, relegating the appellants to file a statutory appeal, does not suffer from any error warranting interference of this Court by exercising its Letters Patent jurisdiction. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the question as to whether the property in question was released from the Court of Wards prior to the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition itself, being a question of fact, the learned Single Judge rightly relegated the appellants to avail the statutory appeal under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Court of Wards Act, 1350 Fasli. Therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ appeal. However, as the appellants are admittedly in possession of the property in question, we are of the view that interests of justice would be met if their possession is not disturbed till the disposal of the appeal being filed by them. The appellants shall file appeal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If such an appeal is filed within the said time, the same shall be entertained and decided by respondent No.1 on merits, without raising any objection as to limitation. It is needless to observe that respondent No.1 shall give notice to all the interested parties including the respondents to this appeal and pass a reasoned order, within a period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal by the appellants. If the appellants fail to file the appeal within the time stipulated above, the interim order shall stand automatically vacated. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ appeal, WAMP(SR).No.26592 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. T. MEENA KUMARI, J C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2009 ES