IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3213 of 2008 Between: 1 Pullakurala Govardhan Reddy S/o late Rama Krishna reddy r/o H. No. 1-8-678/6/E, Padma Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad- 2 Peddi Narsimha Reddy S/o P. Chenna Malla rEddy r/o H-22, Sairam complex, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-44 3 Naini Vijay Reddy S/o late N. Raghuma Reddy R/o H. No. 17-1-2/1/1/A,madannapet, Hyderabad-59 4 Gudigpuram Madhukar Reddy S/o G.Veman Reddy R/o Dugyaia Village, pedda Adavi Cherla mandal, Nallagonda District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Sarpanch Almasguda Gram Panchayat, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Ciripangi maheswhwar S/o C. rama Swamy R/o MF 01/8,"A" Block Nandini Layout, bangalore-560096 4 G. Sai Krishna Reddy S/o Vallabha Reddy r/o P. No. 335, B.N. REddy Vansthalipuram, hyderabad. 5 P. nagi REddy S/o P. venkat Reddy r/o Ramakrishnapauram Village, Talakondapally mandal, Mahaboobnagr District. (Res's 4 & 5 are rep by their constitued power of Attorney Gudur Malla Reddy S/o G. Narasimha REddy 6 Indroju Vaidehi W/o Chandra Mouli R/o Arutla Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 Dabbikar Ramji S/o Not Known to petitioenr R/o Arutla Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 8 Adapa Ramesh S/o Sri Sathyanarayana R/o H. No. 19-2-526, Outside Fathe Darwaza, Hyderabad. rep by Consituted power of Attorney Sri Gudur Malla Reddy S/o G. Narasimha Reddy aged 39 years Business, R/o H. No. 11-3-384/2/59/10, Srinivasa nagar, Hyd. 9 M. Usha Rani W/o Suribabu 10 M. Vijayalakshmi W/o haribabu 11 M. Bharathi Lakshmi W/o M. Gopalakrishna Murthy 12 M. Lakshmi W/o M. Lakshman Rao (Respondents 9 to 12 are R/o of C/o 2-2-559, Nallakunta, lane Opp: Shankarmutt, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to grant any permission in favour of respondents 3 to 12 in respect of the agricultural dry land to an extent of Ac. 0.31 gts. part of Sy. no. 103, situated at Almasguda Village, Saroorngar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the Dispute in O.S. No. 2954 of 2007 pending on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.H.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.ELISHA The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.3213 of 2008 Order: The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural dry land to an extent of Acs.0.31 gts, situated in part of Survey No.103 of Almasguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 15.09.2006. The petitioners state that when respondents 3 to 12 tried to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the said land, they filed O.S. No. 2954 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, and obtained interim injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession. While so, the petitioners state that respondents 3 to 12 approached respondents 1 and 2 seeking grant of permission to raise structures in the land in question, and on coming to know of the same, they filed objection petition dated 28.01.2008 before respondents 1 and 2, enclosing copy of interim injunction granted by the civil Court in the above-mentioned suit, in vain. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Admittedly, the petitioners filed suit O.S. No. 2954 of 2007 for permanent injunction against respondents 3 to 12 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, and obtained interim injunction against them. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in particular, petitioner No.1, namely the Gram Panchayat, Almasguda, who the petitioners contend is bent upon granting construction permission to respondent 3 to 12, is not a party-defendant in the suit filed by the petitioners, and in fact, they have nothing to do with the civil disputes between the petitioners and unofficial respondents 3 to 12. Since it is the case of the petitioners that despite an order of interim injunction being granted in their favour by the civil Court, respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding to grant building construction permission, the remedy of the petitioners is to implead respondent No.1, Gram Panchayat Almasguda, in the suit and obtain appropriate directions against respondent No.1, namely Gram Panchayat, Almasguda, but certainly filing objection petition and opposing the grant construction permission, is not a remedy. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to implead respondent No.1, namely the Gram Panchayat, Almasguda, as defendant in the suit, and seek appropriate directions. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:09.06.2009 VGB