IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21257 and 21555 of 2005 Between: Garlapati Yellaiah & others. … Petitioners (in WP.No.21257 of 2005) D. Venkateshwarlu & others. … Petitioners (in WP.No.21555 of 2005) AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Deverkonda Mandal, Nalgonda, & another. … Respondents (in both the writ petitions) Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Raja Shekar Reddy (in both the writ petitions) Counsel for the respondent : AGP for Revenue (in both the writ petitions) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21257 and 21555 of 2005 COMMON ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposed of with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. WP.No.21257 of 2005 is ﬁled for the following substantive relief: “… … Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate, declaring the interference of the respondents over the petitioners’ property rights in an extent of 94.1 square yards, 94.1 square yards, 188.2 square yards and 94.1 square yards respectively in Sy.No.754 of Deverkonda, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India or pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the interest of justice.” WP.No.21555 of 2005 is ﬁled for the following substantive relief: “… … Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate, declaring the interference of the respondents over the petitioners’ property rights in an extent of land 80.6 square yards each in Sy.No.754 of Deverkonda, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India or pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” At the hearing, Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the subject matter of the property in these two writ petitions was also the subject matter of WP.No.14344 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court on 15.07.2008. In the said order, this Court held as under: “From the pleadings of the petitioners and the submissions made by their counsel at the hearing, it is evident that while the petitioners do not have any objection for remanding the case by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 to determine the eligibility of the claimants under Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, they are aggrieved by the direction to maintain status quo as on 07.12.2004. A perusal of the proceeding sheet shows that the said order was suspended on 05.07.2005. Since the said interim order of suspension is in force till the date, I ﬁnd it expedient to dispose of the writ petition with the direction to respondent No.2 to complete the proceedings in pursuance of the direction given by respondent No.1 in his order, dated 04.01.2005 within a period of three (3) months after giving both the parties an opportunity of personal hearing and pass appropriate order. Pending passing of order by respondent No.2, both the parties to the dispute shall maintain status quo existing as on today. Ordered accordingly.” At the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that in view of pendency of these writ petitions and subsistence of interim orders therein, respondent No.1 is unable to proceed with the enquiry as directed by this Court in WP.No.14344 of 2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the property involved in these writ petitions until respondent No.1 adjudicates the inter se rights of the parties in the pending enquiry. Inasmuch as the property in these writ petitions is common and an enquiry was already directed to be held by respondent No.1, it is appropriate to dispose of these two writ petitions with the direction to respondent No.1 to complete the enquiry as directed by this Court in WP.No.14344 of 2005, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to all the parties interested in the property in question. Till completion of enquiry and passing of appropriate order by respondent No.1, petitioners’ possession over the property shall not be interfered with. Subject to the above observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, WPMP.Nos.27141 and 27147 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 24.09.2008 ES