IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 376 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/12/2007 in WP NO : 15884 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Divisional Railway Manager(Works), Hyderabad Division,South Central Railway, Secunderabad. 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway,Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 K.Pavan Raj, S/o. Late K.Hansraj, R/o. 12-7-106, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section (HO). Tank bund, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants : MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI Counsel for the Respondents : MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 376 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Anil R.Dave) In this appeal, order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15884 of 2007, dated 3rd December 2007 has been challenged. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present respondent No.1 has been permitted to put up construction on the land in question as per permission, which might be granted by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the title of the land in question is in dispute, and, therefore, respondent No.1 should not have been permitted to put up construction on the land in question. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the appellants and looking to the record pertaining to the case, it is clear that in Second Appeal No.108 of 2001, respondent No.1 has succeeded whereby it has been prima facie established that respondent No.1 is in rightful occupation of the land in question. Thereafter, the present appellants have issued notice to respondent No.1 in pursuance of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 and the proceedings under the said Act are pending and the notice which has been issued under the said Act is subject matter of Writ Petition No.27566 of 2005. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed in the impugned order that if ultimately it is held that respondent No.1 is not entitled to occupation of the land in question or if it is held that the land in question belongs to the present appellants, respondent No.1 will have to be evicted. In the circumstances, it is clear that if respondent No.1 fails in Writ Petition No.27566 of 2005, wherein notice issued to respondent No.1 has been challenged, respondent No.1 will have to vacate the land in question. The learned Single Judge has thus taken due care to protect interests of the appellants. We do not find any substance in this appeal, as the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. Appeal dismissed. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 8th April 2008 ___________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr To: 1 K.Pavan Raj, S/o. Late K.Hansraj, R/o. 12-7-106, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. 2 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. rep by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief City Planner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Town Planning Section (HO). Tank bund, Hyderabad.