IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1065 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/07/2009 in WP NO : 10129 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1. Mohd. Ahmadllah Khan and another ... APPELLANTS AND 1. Mahaveer Nagar Welfare Association (Reg.No.5054/97), rep., by its General Secretary P. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Government Service, R/o. H.No. 12-2-396/A/29, Mahaveernagar Colony, Markandeya Nagar, Karwan, Hyderabad and eight others ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K.V. Satyanarayana Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.5: Sri B.A. Prakash Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.8 and 9: Sri Keshav Hulsurkar The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (Per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal has been filed against order dated 28- 07-2009 in Writ Petition No. 10129 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge while disposing of the said writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 directed respondent No. 3 to dispose of the application for condonation of delay filed by respondent No. 1 along with the stay application within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The learned single Judge further directed that till the disposal of the stay application, status quo as on the date of passing of the order should be maintained. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 4 granted Occupancy Right Certificate (“ORC”) in favour of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed an appeal before respondent No.3. Respondent No. 1 got impleaded in the said appeal. Respondent No. 5 withdrew the said appeal. Despite the said withdrawal, respondent No. 3 disposed of the appeal on merits. Questioning the said order, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 9070 of 2006 in this Court, which was allowed and the order of respondent No. 3 was set aside. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a fresh appeal before respondent No. 3 against the order of respondent No.4. Along with the said appeal, it also filed applications for condonation of delay and also for granting an order of stay of order of respondent No.4. It however filed Writ Petition No. 10129 of 2009 with the grievance that though the applications were heard by respondent No.3 along with appeal, no orders were passed thereon. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition as above. The appellants, therefore, filed the present writ appeal. 3. At the hearing, Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 because it has already availed the remedy of appeal to question order dated 30-07- 2003 passed by respondent No.4 granting ORC in favour of the appellants. The learned counsel submitted that respondent No. 1 ought not to have been permitted to avail parallel remedies by entertaining the present writ petition. He further submitted that unless the application of respondent No.1 for condonation of delay was disposed of, it is not entitled to the grant of an interim order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The grievance of respondent No.1 in the writ petition was against non-disposal of its applications filed for condonation of delay and also for stay of the order passed by respondent No.4. However, respondent No.1 had sought for the prayer of setting aside the order of respondent No.4. But, this Court declined to grant the said relief claimed by respondent No.1 and instead, granted the relief only to the extent of directing the parties to maintain status quo for a period of two months with a direction to respondent No. 3 to dispose of the applications filed by respondent No. 1 for condonation of delay and for granting of stay. 5. In our considered view, the said order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or an error apparent on the face of the record, for us to interfere in the appeal. 6. The learned counsel, however, submitted that in the guise of the order of status quo, respondent No.1 is raising constructions. 7. We make it clear that under the order of status quo, respondent No. 1 is not entitled to change the physical features of the property by making further constructions thereon. 8. Subject to the above direction, the writ appeal is disposed of. 9. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, WAMP No.2133 of 2009 filed by the appellants for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th August, 2009 ks