THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.6118 of 2009 Dated 21st April, 2011 Between: Lakavathu Rupli and another …Petitioners And The Agent to the Government and District Collector, Khammam and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Gavuri Naga Raju For Sri Palivela Satya Raja Babu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the record shows that at the instance of respondent No.4, proceedings under the provisions of the A.P. (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Rules, 1969 were initiated in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.00 in Survey No.78 and Acs.2.20 guntas in Survey No.79 by respondent No.2, and the same were registered as L.T.R.Case No.3/2004/CHG. By his order, dated 23.12.2006, respondent No.2 ordered resumption of the lands in question to the Government on finding that respondent No.4 has alienated the properties to the respondents in the said case in violation of Section 3(1) of the A.P.(Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. Respondent No.4 has filed W.P.No.17993 of 2009 in this Court questioning the said order of respondent No.2 and it is admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that no interim order has been passed in the said writ petition, which is stated to be pending. In the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that even though respondent No.4 has failed to get an order, he is seeking to interfere with their possession of the lands in question, which were subsequently assigned to them after resumption. No counter affidavit is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3. Even though a counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.4, Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for him, has fairly stated that his client is not in possession of the lands and he is not interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the properties. As the main grievance of the petitioners is against respondent No.4 and in the light of the submission of Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the said respondent, the writ petition is disposed of by placing on record the above submission of the learned counsel and with the direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the above-mentioned lands in future, unless respondent No.4 succeeds in the pending writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 24.03.2009, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.7997 of 2009, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.7997 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.3820 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st April, 2011 VGB