IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 518 of 2008 Between: Bandaru Yadagiri S/o. Manikyam R/o. 23-5-204, Laldarwaza, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1The Government of Andhra Pradesh,R ep by its Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2The District Collector, Hyderabad District. 3The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District. 4The Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad 5The Asst. Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad 6The Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. 7The Divisional Engineer, Division III A.P. Transco, Falakhnama Division. 8The Assistant Engineer, Division III A.P. Transco, Falakhnama Division. 9The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Division III A.P. Transco, Charminar Division. .....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 issue a writ or any appropriate writ or writs or direction/s more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land admeasuring 2152 sq. yds bearing H.No. 18-3-724/1 situated outside Laldarwaza, previously known as Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad without following due process of law as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Indian Constitution and be pleased to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner complains that the respondents are interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over an extent of 2152 square yards of land in premises, bearing H.No.18-3-724/1, situated outside Laldarwaza, previously known as Kandikal Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District. The petitioner states that the land was originally owned by one Mr.Goverdhan and the father of the petitioner was a lessee in respect of it. The ownership rights are said to have accrued to the father of the petitioner on the basis of a decree in O.S.No.45 of 1963 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 16.04.1963. By pleading that the Tahsildar, the fourth respondent, tried to interfere with his possession, the petitioner filed O.S.No.838 of 1999 in the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Through its judgment, dated 28.10.2003, the trial Court dismissed the suit as regards the relief of declaration of title, but granted the decree of perpetual injunction. The same was affirmed by this Court in C.C.C.A.Nos.134 of 2004 and 99 of 2005. It is also stated that in pursuance of the observation made by a Division Bench of this Court, a fresh suit was filed for the relief of declaration of title, after issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C., and it is complained that though the decree for perpetual injunction is operating, the respondents are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land. On behalf of respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated, inter alia, that the possession of the land was taken way back in the year 1999 and it was made to the A.P. Transco for the purpose of construction a Sub-Station. Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.Transco. The petitioner claims the land through succession from his father, who in turn is said to have acquired it, on the strength of a decree in O.S.No.45 of 1963. The respondents, on the other hand, claim that the land belongs to the Government. O.S.No.838 of 1999 was filed by the petitioner for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The suit with regard to the first relief was dismissed, but it was decreed as regards the second one. While the petitioner preferred an appeal, being C.C.C.A.No.134 of 2004, feeling aggrieved by the denial of declaration of title, the fourth respondent filed C.C.C.A.No.99 of 2005 feeling aggrieved by the decree of injunction. Both the appeals were dismissed. Thereby, the decree of perpetual injunction became final. Once the fourth respondent suffered a decree for perpetual injunction, he cannot be heard to plead that the possession of the property was taken in the year 1999, much less respondents 6 to 9 can plead any rights vis-à-vis the property of the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the plot of 2152 square yards, except by taking recourse to law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.10.02.2009. GJ