IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1308 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29.07.2005 in W.P.NO.16746 OF 2005 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: Uadukuru Adeppa S/o.U.Mallaiah, R/o.Kapuchennampalli village H/o. Chilamathur Mandal, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District. ...APPELLANT AND 1 Smt.Aswarthamma, W/o.V.Adinarayana Reddy, R/o.Kapuchennampalli Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Anantapur District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE FOR R2 to 4 MR.P.NARAHARI BABU FOR R1 The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1308 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) The fourth respondent in Writ Petition No.16746 of 2005 is the appellant herein. This appeal is ﬁled against the order dated 29.07.2005 disposing of the Writ Petition ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein. In the said Writ Petition, the ﬁrst respondent sought for a Writ of Mandamus, inter alia, assailing the correctness of the orders passed by the second respondent herein rejecting to grant stay, pending proceedings in the appeal, as against the cancellation of assignment. While disposing of the Writ Petition, having taking note of the suit already ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein in O.S.No.407 of 2004 and the order passed in W.P.No.11104 of 2005, the learned Single Judge directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and till such time, the authorities including the appellant herein, who is the fourth respondent, therein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the first respondent over the land in question. It is this latter part, which is more aggrieved by the appellant herein. Hence, the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the suit already ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent, there is no necessity for giving such direction, especially a positive injunction and dispose of the writ Petition. Thus, the appellant herein had no opportunity to contest the same. That apart, it is always open for the ﬁrst respondent to seek appropriate orders in the suit ﬁled by her or in the appeal, which is directed to be disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that having regard to the facts and circumstances, especially since the direction is given for disposal of the appeal, it is only to protect his possession, necessary orders need to be passed. Having heard on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since the Writ Petition was disposed of at the admission stage, without providing an opportunity to the appellant herein, the question of grant of stay etc., and injunction is not sustainable especially in view of the fact that a civil suit has already been pending at the instance of the ﬁrst respondent herein and further, the ﬁrst respondent can move appropriate applications even in the said appeal, which was directed to be disposed of. In view of the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. The portion of the order of the learned Single Judge directing not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the appellant herein over the land in question is set aside. However, we make it clear that it is always open for the ﬁrst respondent herein to move appropriate applications in the suit or the appeal and the same shall be disposed of on merits, without being inﬂuenced by any of the observations made in this appeal. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 21st October 2008 RRB