HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 14-12-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1442 OF 2009 Between: Thota Shankar Rao and another ... APPELLANTS AND The Municipal Corporation of Warangal, rep., by its Commissioner, Hanamkonda, Warangal District and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1442 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Feeling aggrieved by order dated 25-11-2009 in WPMP No. 27154 of 2009 and WVMP No. 3336 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 20854 of 2009, respondent No.3 in the writ petition filed this appeal. We have heard Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 – writ petitioners. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed the writ petition for a mandamus to direct the official respondents not to dispossess them without following due process of law. Initially, an ad interim order was granted in favour of the writ petitioners by the learned single Judge. The appellant – respondent No.3 filed vacate stay application, wherein he has specifically pleaded that the extent of Acs.9.10 cents of land in Survey No. 280 of Kumara Venkatapuram Village, BN Kadriga Mandal, Chittoor District is a government land and that on the application of the appellant, the Department of Mines granted lease in respect of the above mentioned land for extracting mineral and that in pursuance of the said grant, lease deed was entered into by him on 15-07-2009. It was also pleaded on behalf of the appellant that except claiming that the respondents – writ petitioners were in possession of the above mentioned property, no documentary evidence was placed in the writ petition in support thereof. The learned single Judge while observing that even though the plea of the appellant may be correct, unless and until the official respondents file their counter affidavit and produce record, no decision can be taken on the plea of respondent No.3. Accordingly, the learned single Judge made interim order dated 24-09- 2009 absolute. At the hearing, the learned Senior Counsel had invited our attention to the documentary evidence produced by the writ petitioners, which pertains to No.3 account, a perusal of which prima facie shows that for the period from 1996 to 2001, D. Guruvaiaah was in possession of land and from 2002 to 2004, D. Nagesh, son of Guruvaiaah is in possession of the same extent of land. Neither Guruvaiaah nor the said Nagesh are parties to the writ petition. The revenue record does not appear to show that even Guruvaiaah or Nagesh have been in possession of any land from 2005 onwards. On the respondents’ - writ petitioners’ own showing they are in occupation of government land. Unless the petitioners establish their right, they are not entitled to claim any interim relief. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and order dated 24-09-2009 is vacated. We make it clear that the observations made in this writ appeal shall not have any bearing on the out come of the writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is allowed. As a sequel to the above, WAMP No. 2989 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14-12-2009 ks