THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.13904 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the premises bearing plot No.45 admeasuring 475 sq.yards situated at East Maredpally, Secunderabad having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, dated 20.10.1984, and since then, she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. She states that her name was also mutated in the revenue records in respect of the said premises. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are interfering with her possession in respect of the subject premises, without following due process of law. The petitioner states that the respondents instituted L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 before the Special Court, under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad and though the same is pending, they are illegally and arbitrarily interfering with her possession. Hence, the present writ petition. This Court, on 01.08.2002 while issuing Rule nisi, passed the following interim order: “Interim direction as prayed for on condition that the petitioner files an unconditional undertaking that he shall not make any further construction in the disputes land and the said undertaking shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of one week from today.” Subsequently, the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit brining on record various facts and denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the entire land situated in Survey No.74 to an extent of Acs.306.15 guntas is a Government Poramboke as per Pahani Patrika of 1356 Fasli and there are no sub-divisions in the said survey number. That there are several illegal claims over the said land based upon certain alleged assignments purported to have been made by the Paigah Authorities illegally, after abolition of paighas in favour of their kith and kiin. That the entire land in Survey No.74 is rocky and unfit for any agricultural operations. That as it is the duty of the respondents to protect the Government lands, they have initiated necessary steps for removing the unauthorized structures in the subject land. It is categorically stated in the counter that a comprehensive Land Grabbing Case in L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 has been filed by the respondents in respect of the subject land against seven societies before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad and the same is pending. That being fully aware of filing of LGC, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that no proceedings are initiated as per law by the respondents. Thus, the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition. On 15.03.2010, as none appeared for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed on 22.03.2010 under the caption ‘for orders’. On 22.03.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and sought time to get instructions as to whether the undertaking as directed by this Court on 01.08.2002 was filed in the Registry. Therefore, this Court posted the matter today by directing the Office to put up a note in this regard. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions. But, the Registry put up a note indicating that no undertaking as directed by this Court on 01.08.2002 was filed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that though the LGC is still pending, the petitioner is trying to change the nature of the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner has not complied with the conditional interim order passed by this Court, still she is entitled to get main relief, as the respondents are interfering with her possession without following due process of law and unless and until, a decree is passed in the LGC, the petitioner is at liberty to deal with the property as she wishes. I am unable to accept such a contention, for the reason that the litigation between the parties in respect of the subject land is pending consideration before the Special Court, under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad and therefore, neither of the parties have any right to deal with the property as they wish. Apart from that, the conditional interim order passed by this Court on 01.08.2002 has not been complied with by the petitioner so far. Therefore, I see no reasons to grant the relief as prayed for and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:23.03.2010 VGB