THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20173 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner purchased a plot of 444.44 square yards in Survey No.74/9 of Marredpally, Secunderabad, through sale deed, dated 29.06.1995, from one Sri Susheel Kumar. The vendor of the petitioner, in turn, is said to have purchased it in the year 1982 from a society, by name Seva Mandal. L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 was filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad against as many as 2042 persons alleging that they have grabbed the Government land in Survey No.74. The petitioner figured as respondent No.2039. The petitioner states that with a view to put an end to the litigation, she has approached the District Collector claiming the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, and the Collector, in turn, issued proceedings, dated 08.07.2009, directing conveyance of the property on payment of Rs.15,89,382/-. The resultant sale deed, dated 13.07.2009, was also executed in favour of the petitioner by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector. The petitioner made an application to the Cantonment Board, the first respondent herein, with a request to accord permission to construct a compound wall. The permission was rejected, through proceedings, dated 07.09.2009, on the ground that a case is pending. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that no case is pending in the High Court and it is only L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 that is now pending before the Special Court. It is stated that, against her, the dispute is no longer pending, since the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by the Government itself. On behalf of the first respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed stating that as long as the dispute is pending, it has no option except to reject the application. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The only ground on which the first respondent rejected the application of the petitioner was that a case is pending before this Court in relation to the land. On verification, it emerges that it is only the L.G.C. that has been filed by the Government in respect of a vast extent of land in Survey No.74 and that the petitioner figured as a respondent therein. In case that dispute is still pending vis-à-vis the petitioner, the first respondent cannot be compelled to process the application of the petitioner. The record discloses that the District Collector passed an order in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, and in fact, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 13.07.2009. With this, the allegation against the petitioner that she grabbed the property ceases to exist. Her possession and ownership is approved and acknowledged by the Government itself. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner, duly taking into account the sale deed executed in her favour by the Government on 13.07.2009. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:16.12.2009 Note: Issue c.c. in three days. (B/o) kdl