HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 24738 of 2004 DATED: 11.08.2011 Between: Pandurangaiah Constructions .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. and 11 others .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) The assertion of the petitioner – Pandurangaiah Constructions is that it (the firm) purchased residential plots bearing Nos.14 to 20 admeasuring 1578 Sq. yards from the respondent Nos.5, 6 and 9 herein and another Plot No.21 admeasuring 228.30 Sq. yards from the 12th respondent herein in the lay out of Sy.No.55 part situated in Khanamet village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 26.07.1996 and 31.07.1996 respectively and the lands in question do not belong to the Government and the petitioner and its vendors have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands in Sy.No. 55 for more than 30 years. Further, it is stated that the 1st respondent-Government filed L.G.C. No. 101 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court Under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad alleging that the petitioner and the respondent Nos.3 to 12 grabbed the land in question admeasuring Ac.2.06 guntas of land belonging to the Government in Sy.No.55 of Khanamet village, and the Special Court, vide judgment, dated 24.03.2004, allowed the L.G.C. declaring that the petitioner and the respondent Nos.4 to 9, 11 and 12 herein are the land grabbers and also directing them to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the land within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. It is further directed that the 10th respondent herein shall maintain Status Quo until further orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer. Assailing the judgment dated 24.03.2004, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 2nd respondent in the L.G.C. and the 10th respondent herein have filed separate writ petitions in W.P. Nos.9459 and 9481 of 2004 challenging the judgment in L.G.C. No. 101 of 1997, and this Court, by a common order dated 13.09.2007, while allowing the writ petitions made the following observation: “The consideration herein is confined to the sustainability of the action of the State against the respondents in possession under the colour of lawful title under the special jurisdiction but no part of this judgment is an expression of opinion on the rights of the State to pursue the regular remedies provided to it by law in respect of the said land, if it is within its lawful entitlement to pursue the same against the respondents or any others. So, while leaving open such questions to be determined in such appropriate legal proceedings, these two writ petitions have to be allowed in the circumstances without costs.” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material placed on record. Inasmuch as the subject matter of the present writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.9459 and 9481 of 2004, following the same common order, this writ petition is also allowed in the same terms as indicated therein. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 11.08.2011 __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J bcj