*The Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.RAO +Writ Petition No.25996 of 2008 % 19.12.2008 £ B.Kalyani and others …Petitioners Vs. $ The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by District Collector, at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents !For the petitioners …Mr.Venkateswarlu Posani ^For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 … GP for Revenue <Gist: >Head Notes: 1. AIR 1954 SC 207 2. AIR 1961 SC 1615 3. (1995) 1 SCC 642 4. AIR 1991 MADRAS 323 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25996 of 2008 Between: 1 B. Kalyani W/o. Venudhar Reddy R/o. H.No. 10-81/1, SBI Colony, Kothapet, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist. 2 T. Lakshmi W/o. Vishnu Murthy R/o. MIG-42, HUDA Employees Colony, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 T. Madhu Sudhan S/o. Eswaraiah R/o. Flat No.A-1, Swathi Sikhara Apartments, HUDA Complex, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 Chinta Lakshmi W/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Plot No.6/8, Road No.1, Green Hills Colony, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the District Collector at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. 3 The Assistant Director Survey & Land Records Ranga Reddy Dist., at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation L.B. Nagar Circle, Saroor Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist. 5 Syed Khasim S/o. Syed Ahmed, R/o. H.No. 22-3-947, Purani Haweli, Hyderabad. 6 Mrs. Rithika W/o. Captain Thomas R/o. B-197, Sainikpuri, Secunderbad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the letter in Lr.No.B/59/2008, dated 18-2-2008 of the 2nd respondent and connected demarcation sketch dated 8-2-2008 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, contrary to law, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25996 of 2008 ORDER: The four petitioners are allegedly absolute owners and possessors of plot Nos.75-D, 75-C and 75-B, each admeasuring 325 square yards, situated at Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar. First petitioner got the plot under registered gift deed, dated 12.12.1995 from her father, petitioners 2 and 3 jointly purchased under registered sale deeds, dated 30.07.1998 and fourth petitioner purchased the property under registered sale deed, dated 12.03.2008. Alleging that there is an interference with possession from respondents 5 and 6, first petitioner filed O.S.No.325 of 2008 on the file of Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and obtained ad interim injunction on 27.02.2008 in I.A.No.379 of 2008. Similarly, petitioners 2 and 4 filed O.S.No.220 of 2008 on the file of Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Both the suits are pending. In the meanwhile, second respondent by proceedings, dated 18.02.2008, requested fourth respondent to handover possession of land admeasuring 9,000 square yards, in survey No.8, near Killa Maisamma, Saroornagar village to sixth respondent as per demarcation sketch of third respondent vide his letter, dated 08.02.2008. It is alleged that armed with the letter of second respondent, fifth respondent, a group of unknown persons and employees from the office of fourth respondent high handedly tried to enter into petitioner’s land. Their enquiries revealed that fifth respondent filed O.S.No.509 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against fourth respondent for granting perpetual injunction. The said Court, by order, dated 12.07.2007 made in I.A.No.551 of 2007 granted ad interim injunction restraining fourth respondent from demolishing the structures in the property of the said suit. The sixth respondent who is General Power of Attorney holder of fifth respondent, then obtained the impugned order in collusion with respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, petitioners filed instant writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus declaring letter, dated 18.02.2008, of second respondent addressed to fourth respondent and the connected demarcation sketch, dated 08.02.2008 of third respondent as illegal and arbitrary. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA) and learned standing counsel for GHMC. As rightly pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader when three suits involving the title and possession to the land in survey Nos.7 and 8 are already pending in the civil Courts, a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not lie. The legal position is well settled. (See K.S.Rashid & Son v ITI Commission, Carl Still G.M.B.H. v State of Bihar and Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v Gokak Patel Volkart). If there is any threat of high handed dispossession, the petitioners who obtained orders of ad interim injunction from the civil Courts can as well approach respondents 2 and 4, and give a representation. It is also open to them to get impleaded in O.S.No.509 of 2007 on the file of Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and seek necessary clarificatory orders in the civil Court. In a case of this nature, if the High Court interferes, it not only amounts to interfering with the civil judicial process already initiated by rival parties in civil Courts, but also send confusing signals to public authorities who are bound to respect orders of Courts. As held by Full Bench of Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v Tamil Nadu Olympic Association, an order of injunction operates as an order in rem, and unless and until clarification is sought from concerned Court which granted injunction, even a third party cannot violate such order, which might result in legal injury to the beneficiary of Court order. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .12.2008 Note: LR copy be marked. (By order) pln