IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6271 of 2002 Between: 1 Narayana Rao, S/o Yakarani R/o Allapuram H.No. 1-94 Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 2 Shaik Mahathab S/o Shaik Moiuddin R/o Allapur H.No. 1-1-92 Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 3 Shaik Kaleel S/o Shaik Baheer, R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 4 Naseem Bhanu W/o Naseemuddin R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 5 Veerabai W/o Pandari R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 6 Mohd. Safuddin S/o Late Baghimsab, R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 7 Mohd.Kaleem S/o Shafuruddin R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 8 Sunitha Bai W/o Manohar singh R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 9 P.A.Prasad Rao, s/o Venkatapaiah R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 10 Smt. Azamunnisa Begum W/o Syed Zahed-ul Hasab, R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 11 Shaik Mahamood S/o Abdul Rahaman, R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 12 Shaik Saleema w/o Shaik Moulana R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. 13 Smt. K.Rukkammas W/o Hanumanthu R/o Allapuram Balanagar Mandal R.R.District. .. PETITIONERS AND 1 The Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella R.R.District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Balanagar Mandal, R.R.District. 4 G.Anjaiah ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: None appeared Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr Gummalla Vijaya Kumar The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioners from plot Nos.19 & 22, 44, 30, 28, 26, 18 & 23, 43, 24, 11 & 12, 20, 17 and 43 admeasuring 100 square yards each in Survey Nos.7 and 8 of Allapur Village, Balanagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard Sri Gummalla Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, and perused the record. The petitioners’ case, as reﬂected from the averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, is that they are in possession of the plots referred to above which were purchased by them from G.Seetharama Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy on 29-07-1983. According to the petitioners, their vendor Seetharama Reddy purchased the land from Gurjala Narasimha, S/o Pichaiah and his brothers. The petitioners assailed the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to take possession of the plots on the purported ground that he was seeking to implement the order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 in a land grabbing case. According to the petitioners, the order passed by the Special Court in a case in which they are not parties is not binding on them and they cannot be dispossessed in order to execute such an order. Respondent No.4, who got impleaded in this writ petition, pleaded in his aﬃdavit that the property belongs to him and ﬁve others and when the same was grabbed by one Fathima Begum and 15 others, he and the other ﬁve owners of the land ﬁled LGC No.178 of 1998 in the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the Special Court by its order dated 27-10-1999 allowed the said case and declared the respondents therein as land grabbers. He further pleaded that despite his eﬀorts to get the said order of the Special Court implemented, no action was taken by the Revenue Department and that therefore, he ﬁled I.A.No.472 of 2005 in LGC No.178 of 1998 for execution of the order of the Special Court. Evidently on coming to know about the eﬀorts of the Revenue Department to recover possession, the petitioners ﬁled the present writ petition and in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the execution proceedings before the Special Court have got stalled. The fact that the Special Court allowed LGC No.178 of 1998 in respect of the land in occupation of the petitioners is not disputed by the petitioners. Therefore, the said order of the Special Court cannot be ignored and respondent No.4 and others are entitled to seek implementation of the same. If the petitioners are likely to be aﬀected by the execution of the said order, the only remedy available to them is to get impleaded in I.A.No.472 of 2005 ﬁled by respondent No.4 and others for execution of the said order and resist such execution. The petitioners cannot avail the remedy of writ petition to interdict the Special Court from executing its order. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps in the execution proceedings pending before the Special Court. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th November, 2008 vrn