THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 243 of 2003 ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The present Writ Appeal is filed against the orders of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6987 OF 2002 and C.C.No.661 of 2002, dated 21.10.2002. The learned Single Judge basing on the plan submitted by Revenue Divisional Officer has given the following directions: “The area occupied by the huts are marked in ‘A’ should be arranged to be fenced by the Mandal Revenue Officer at the cost of the petitioners and the area covered by ‘B’ also should be included in the area fenced and as far as the area covered by ‘C’ is concerned, it is already in the midst of the huts and no separate fencing is necessary. The area beyond the fencing should be allowed to be occupied by the petitioners subject to the rights of the third parties.” Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the area of 2 acres of land has been occupied by the hut dwellers and constructing more structures. As can be seen from the order under challenge, the directions given by the learned Single Judge is beyond the scope of the writ petition and also beyond the prayer sought in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has called for the report and basing on the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the learned Single Judge has passed the above directions. We had also an occasion to go through the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad Division, which was filed as part of the material in Contempt Case No. 661 of 2002, wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer has stated that the total area comes to 3224.45sq.mts. which is based on the survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor and the area covered by huts is 1,541 sq.mtrs, area covered by toilets is 21.16 sq.mtrs., area covered by Anganwadi Schools is 0.32 sq.mtrs., area covered by structures is 5,658.45 sq.mtrs., vacant land is 531.00 sq.mtrs., area covered by Graves is 72.00 sq.mtrs. and non-surplus land of Sri N. Jaya Vrathu in C.C.No. J/2127/76 is 1,398.84 sq.mtrs. A perusal of the report of the Surveyor goes to show that the area occupied by the hut dwellers is beyond the area occupied by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a civil suit has been filed and the same was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal, the defeated party has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.327 of 2008 before the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad and the same is pending. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the rights of the parties can be hesitated before the appropriate forum and accordingly we hold that the direction given by the learned Single Judge is beyond the scope of the writ petition. Under the above circumstances, we set aside the direction given by the learned Single Judge to the extent that beyond the fencing should be allowed to be occupied by the petitioners subject to the rights of the third parties. Accordingly, direction of the learned Single Judge is set aside to the above extent and the writ appeal is allowed, without any effect to the rights of the respondent to pursue the pending appeal. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ______________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27.1.2009 CHV