IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 26461 of 2007 Between: 1 Smt, Erraboina Jhansi, W/o.Jayaramulu, R/o. H.No. 10-3-334, Vidyanagar, Karimnagar. 2 Kesetty Padmavathi, W/o Tirumalesh, R/o 1-6-7, Shastri Road, Karimnagar. 3 Kesetty Sriramulu, S/o Veeraiah, R/o Jaggaiahpalli Village, Manakonduru (M), Karimnagar District. 4 Kesetty Tirumalesh, S/o Sriramulu, R/o 1-6-7, Shastri Road, Karimnagar. 5 Kannapuram Pentaiah, S/o Bhoomaiah, R/o 6-1-245, Ashoknagar, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar. 3 The Tahsildar, Karimnagar. 4 Mandal Revenue Inspector, Karimnagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd and 4th respondents in raising constructions in petitioners' lands admeasuring ac.2.20 gts., in Sy.No.136 of Rekurthi Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District as illegal, arbitrary, high-handedness against the orders of their superior dated 10-10-2007 and void; and consequently direct them not to make any constructions or interfere with the possession of the petitioner over their land; and pass suchother or further orders deemed just and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.SIDDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. On perusal of the averments in the writ petition and the relief sought, it is apparent that the complaint is that the respondents are violating the ad-interim order of status-quo granted by the 2nd respondent in an appeal preferred by the petitioners to the said respondent under Section 4-A of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The 2nd respondent, by an order dated 10-10- 2007 in Appeal No. L/5498/2007 had directed maintenance of status- quo pending disposal of the appeal. In the writ petition it is complained that notwithstanding the order of status-quo, the officials of the 3rd and 4th respondent are entering upon the property and are constructing a basement therein violating the order of status-quo. This Court is not an executing court for the 2nd respondent appellate authority. The writ petition is misconceived. If the respondents had violated the order of the appellate authority, the petitioners ought to bring it to the notice of the 2nd respondent and not by way of a writ petition. On the above analysis, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th June, 2009. GRR