THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.2040 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for, in this Writ Petition, is to declare the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 04.01.2011, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A consequential direction is sought to have the proceedings dated 16.11.2010 issued by the 5th respondent also as illegal. The petitioner claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8.28 gts in Sy. No.63/A of Nadargul village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. It is their case that the 6th respondent filed O.S. No.1293 of 2001 and 788 of 1999 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy; the interlocutory applications filed therein was dismissed and, during the pendency of the suits, the 6th respondent had manipulated the revenue records and had his vendors names mutated in the pahanies dated 02.02.2002. It is the petitioner’s case that the 3rd and 4th respondents had issued proceedings dated 04.01.2011 and 27.12.2010 without putting the petitioners on notice and without considering their objections that the 6th respondent be directed to stop construction as the civil suits were pending before the Principal Civil Judge, Rangareddy. By proceedings dated 04.01.2011, the 3rd respondent accorded permission for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes subject to the conditions therein. Earlier, by proceedings dated 27.12.2010, the 4th respondent had stated that land of an extent of Ac.03.05 gts in Sy. No.63/A which was sought to be converted for non-agricultural purposes did not come under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and no Government interest was involved in the land; there were no religious constructions; and, as per the revenue records, the land was classified as patta land. The petitioner relies on an endorsement dated 03.01.2011 by the Joint Collector directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to stop conversion of the land, as the suit was pending in the City Civil Court, Rangareddy. Sri S. Sudeep Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 6th respondent would submit that both the suits filed by the 6th respondent against the petitioner and others for permanent injunction was decreed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rangareddy on 30.09.2011. Sri Ch. Anjaneyulu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fairly state that, in the light of the decree of the civil Court, no relief can be claimed by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. He would, however, submit that the petitioner was not in a position to challenge the judgment and decree passed on 30.09.2011, as a copy of the said order was not made available. Since the 6th respondent has obtained a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners and others in the civil suits filed by him against them, the petitioner’s objection to the conversion of the agricultural lands of the petitioner for non-agricultural purposes cannot be examined in the present Writ Petition. Challenge to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 04.01.2011 must fail on this short ground. The Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 18.10.2011 MRKR