IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.18247 of 2009 Between: 1 Najeebuddin Ghalib S/o.Late Shamsuddin Ghalib R/o.42-736/A,Mussallam Jung colony Moulali, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, and 19-2-23 Maqbara Ghalib Jung, Misiri Gunj, Hyderabad 2 P.Srinivas S/o.P.Lingamaiah r/o.42-86/9, Mussallam Jung colony,Moula Ali Ranga Reddy District 3 N.Tirupathilal S/o.late N.Balaji R/o.42-736/2&3 Mussallam Jung colony Moula Ali, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 4 N.Bhoopathi Goud @ Bhikshapathi Goud S/o.Ram Lingam Goud R/o.42-736/10 ,42-736/11, 42-736/12 Mussallam Jung colony, Moula Ali,Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District 5 P.Narendera Reddy S/o.P.Ramachandra Reddy R/o.42-736/4 Mussallam Jung colony, Moula Ali,Malkajgiri Mandal Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Water Development Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, rep.by its Secretary Smt.Ramana Dayakar office at T.B.-94, F-6,Balladi Estate, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 2 Aga Mohammed Ali S/o.Aga Ali Mosa R/o.16-9-690/C/2/A, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-36 3 The Tahsildar , Office of Tahsildhar Revenue Officer Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus and direct the respondent No.3 herein to conduct proper survey in accordance with the provisions of Ruel 6(2) of AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988, and submit the same in the LGC.No.37 of 2006 on the file of the Special court under the AP Land Grabbing (Prohibition ) Act 1982, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SHIREESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.18247 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) The petitioners seek to question the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 21.08.2007 vide his letter No.B/189/2003. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that based on the aforesaid report, the Special Court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Court”) in LGC.37/2006 has taken cognizance of the aforesaid land grabbing case and later there was an order in I.A.1206/2006 in LGC.37/2006 dated 19.03.2008 appointing an Advocate-Receiver to take over the custody of the application schedule property in an extent of Ac.9.15 gts. bearing Sy.No.358/1 and 358/2 of Malkajgiri Mandal of Kapra Municipality, now within the jurisdiction of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that against the appointment of Receiver, individual writ petitions were filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide orders dated 15.10.2008 in W.P.26478/2008 and batch, passed the following order: “In this view of the matter the impugned order appointing Advocate-Receiver is restricted to only to the land covered by Ac.4.21 gts. which is stated to be vacant and open land including roads. However, it is made clear that 20 persons named in the M.R.O.report shall not make further constructions and maintain status quo existing as on today till adjudication of the LGC. In the result, the impugned order dated 19.03.2008 passed in I.A.1206/2006 in LGC.37/2006 is modified to the extent indicated above and the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.” The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that based on the aforesaid orders, the Receiver is taking steps to take over the entire Ac.4.21 gts of land. It is stated that the 1st petitioner was impleaded as one of the respondents in the LGC subsequent to the orders of this Court in W.P.13014/2009 dated 02.07.2009, and another application seeking to implead the petitioners 2 to 5 herein is said to be pending. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule-6(2) dated 21.08.2007 itself is incorrect and he states that though the said report is prepared for LGC.37/2006 the annexure to the said report namely, the list of persons occupying the land as well as the sketch/plan as prepared in LGC.68/2007 are enclosed as part of the report in the present LGC. The learned counsel also submits that the extent of vacant land is much less than Ac.4.21 gts. as was mentioned in the order of this Court, extracted above. We have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that challenge to report under Rule-6(2) is not sustainable, as the report under Rule-6(2) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 is primarily meant for the assistance to the Special Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, for taking cognizance of the land grabbing case. Since admittedly the Special Court has taken cognizance long back, on the basis of the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule-6(2), correctness or otherwise of the said report, particularly as contended by the petitioners cannot be a ground to question the said report. We also feel that the rights of the parties are not decided by the said report of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Rule-6(2) and the same cannot be said to affect any party and it is only the Special Court or the Tribunal that would decide the rights of the parties. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that actual extent of the vacant land available and for which a receiver was appointed by this Court was wrongly mentioned as Ac.4.21 gts though the actual extent of vacant land is much less. We are afraid that aspect cannot be gone into this writ petition, as the order of the Division Bench of this Court, extracted above, has already attained finality and if the petitioners have any grievance with respect to the extent mentioned therein, it is open for the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings in that regard. Subject to the liberty, as above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J _______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 14.09.2009 Dsr