THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15451 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of Ac.5.53 guntas of land situated in Survey No.529 of Dammapeta Village, having inherited the same from his father, filed O.S.No.12 of 1990 before the District Munsiff, Sathupalli seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants including the fifth respondent herein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property. Upon dismissal of the said suit, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal in A.S.No.1 of 1998 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupalli, who allowed the appeal decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, it appears the fifth respondent carried the matter in second appeal in S.A.No.323 of 2001, wherein this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo, and the said second appeal is pending. While so, the fourth respondent laid High Tension Electrical lines from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam, which passed through the land in question and while doing so, 13 mango trees, two cashew nut trees, one nemali tree and one pachi tree, which were in the land in question, of an value of Rs.70,500/-, were removed. The third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer-Dammapeta got sale of the wastage from selling the trees, which fetched for Rs.9000/-. When the petitioner made a claim for compensation, the fifth respondent also made a similar claim. As there are rival claims for payment of compensation, it is stated that the third respondent kept the said amount of Rs.9,000/- in fixed deposit pending disposal of the second appeal and the same was agreed to by the fifth respondent and the petitioner. At that stage, the third respondent addressed the impugned letter to the fourth respondent requesting him to pay compensation amount to the fifth respondent stating that the fifth respondent got possession over the land in question. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed stating that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the fourth respondent to pay compensation to the fifth respondent in respect of the trees, when the second appeal is pending before this Court. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent justifying his addressing the impugned letter to the fourth respondent for payment of compensation to the fifth respondent with regard to the trees. In spite of service of notice, the fifth respondent did not choose to put up appearance opposing the writ petition. When both the petitioner as well as the fifth respondent are claiming possession over the land in question, the right to claim compensation has to be decided by the competent civil Court on establishing the title over the said land. Admittedly, A.S.No.1 of 1998 has been decided in favour of the petitioner decreeing the suit for perpetual injunction. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to be in possession of the property. In view of the same, the third respondent has no jurisdiction to address the impugned letter to the fourth respondent requesting him to pay compensation to the fifth respondent for the trees. Therefore, the impugned letter is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 03.02.2011 va