IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WVMP No.322 of 2008 in WPMP No.34652 of 2007 And WRIT PETITION No.26565 of 2007 Between: Chinna Kelesha and another. … Petitioners AND Government of A.P., reptd., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.S.Murthy Counsel for the respondents: Asst. Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for R.1 to R.5. Sri V.Surender Reddy for R.6. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER:- This WVMP is filed by respondent No.6 to vacate the interim order dated 13-12-2007 passed by this Court in WPMP No.34652 of 2007. At the interlocutory stage the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioners pleaded that there is an agreement of sale dated 27-11-1982 between them and respondent No.6 with regard to 1050 Sq. yards of land; that they paid Rs.45,250/- to respondent No.6 (wrongly mentioned as respondent No.5 in the affidavit); that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property and they have also let out three small portions to third parties and agreed to sell away 200 Sq. yards out of the said property to one Md.Masthan; that though they are ready and willing to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed registered, respondent No.6 is evading to accept the same and demanded more money; that when respondent No.6 threatened to evict the petitioners, they filed O.S.No.600 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for specific performance of agreement of sale; and that by order dated 3-8-2006, the said Court granted injunction against respondent No.6. The petitioners further pleaded that in the last week of October 2007 the staff of respondent No.5-Corporation and the office of respondent No.3 (Sub-Collector, Vijayawada) demanded the petitioners to vacate the premises and handover possession on the ground that the Special Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for short “the Special Tribunal”), constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1988 granted an order in favour of respondent No.6. Apprehending dispossession, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. In his counter-affidavit, respondent No.6 stated that petitioner No.1 described himself as one Chinna Kelesha, who is not a party to O.S.No.600 of 2006; that one Shaik Chinna Kalesha is second plaintiff to the said suit; and that respondent No.6 is the absolute owner of the said property. He further stated that he filed L.G.O.P.No.13 of 1990 in the Special Tribunal for declaration that 11 persons, arrayed as parties therein, are land grabbers; that after due trial the Special Tribunal declared all those 11 persons as land grabbers and directed to vacate the premises within three months and consequently declared the petitioners as absolute owners of the scheduled property; and that the appeal and the Writ Petition filed by them were dismissed. Respondent No.6 further alleged that the petitioners are land grabbers and created a false possessory agreement of sale at the behest of one Sri Atluri Ranga Rao, who was declared as land grabber thrice in respect of the same land by three different Fora, and filed O.S.No.600 of 2006. On this premise, respondent No.6 seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.6. The facts, which are admitted and as noted, are that there is a dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.6 over the property in question. The suit filed by the petitioners against respondent No.6 for specific performance of agreement of sale is pending. The petitioners are not parties to L.G.O.P.No.13 of 1990. Therefore, at this stage, it is not possible for this Court to give a finding whether the possessory agreement, based on which the petitioners filed their suit, is genuine or not and whether the petitioners are in possession of the property in their own right under the said alleged possessory agreement. Since the suit is pending, these aspects are required to be gone into and adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. Since the petitioners are not parties to the land grabbing case before the Special Tribunal and they claimed that they have already filed an application before the Special Tribunal, which was returned for compliance with certain objections, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to re-present the said application before the Special Tribunal within a period of three weeks from today. On such re-presentation, the Special Tribunal shall adjudicate the same on merits after hearing both the parties, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till then, the parties shall maintain status quo existing as on today with respect to possession of the land in question. Subject to the above observations, the writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 29-2-2008 Note: Issue CC in one week. (BO) MNR