THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.9221 OF 2007 DATED 27.04.2007 BETWEEN Nadargul (V) Land Ousters Sankshema Sangham rep.by its President Sri Boina Babu … Petitioner AND The Government of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.9221 OF 2007 ORDER: Nadargul (V) Land Ousters Sankshema Sangham filed this writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 5 in not taking any action against respondents 6 to 21 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary action against respondents 6 to 21. It is the case of the petitioner that its members are poor and have taken up floriculture and wormi culture in the land admeasuring Acs.373.22 guntas comprised in survey No.119 (old survey No.613), Acs.523.10 guntas in survey Nos.1 to 118, 142 to 191 (old survey No.664) and Acs.72.10 guntas in survey Nos.120 to 141, 142 (P) (old survey No.721) situated in Nadalgul village. They are allegedly in possession of the land from the time of their forefathers, which was also recognized by the Government. This land is recorded as Kancha Sarcari in the revenue records. Respondents 6 to 21 executed general power of attorney to respondent No.22, who started transferring the land illegally. He also tried to grab the land. When there was a rumour in the village that Government allotted the land to Fab City and compensation would be paid to occupants, petitioner handed over their certificates, tax receipts and member identity cards etc., to the authorities for the purpose of identification. In the meanwhile, respondents 6 to 21 filed civil suit in Ranga Reddy District claiming title through the Jagirdhar Shivraj Bahdur, who had Jagir of 1,000 to 2,000 acres. Be that as it is, the suit for injunction being O.S.No.155 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, was not properly contested by Government. Therefore, the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, passed orders in I.A.No.1834 of 2005, dated 10.04.2006 granting injunction in favour of respondents 6 to 21. On the strength of said order, respondents 6 to 21 started threatening the members of the petitioner association. When the members of petitioner association were attending to agricultural operations, the fifth respondent, registered cases against them. The petitioner, with the help of political parties, conducted Dharna for enforcing its members’ rights. The petitioner alleges that respondents 6 to 21 were never in possession of property, and therefore, respondents 1 to 4 should take necessary action against them. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana), after getting instructions, submits that learned Advocate General for State of Andhra Pradesh appeared on behalf of Government and that Judgment is reserved before the Principal District Court, Ranga Reddy District, with regard to title to the land. He also submits that in the absence of members, who are allegedly in occupation of the land in survey No.119, the petitioner, who is not at all in possession, cannot maintain the writ petition. After perusing the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, which is not comprehensive, coercive and logical – what emerges is the members of petitioner association are in possession of Government land in survey No.119 of Nadargul village, and there is interference from respondents 6 to 21. It is also the case of the petitioner association that in spite of conducting Dharna and making representations, no action was taken against respondents 6 to 21. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, none of the members of petitioner association, who is allegedly in possession of the land, is a party before this Court. Knowing fully well that the suit is pending before the civil Court, the petitioner or its members never attempted to implead in the suit. Presumably, for the reason that the suit is likely to be disposed, they filed this writ petition. Such writ petition cannot be entertained. If the suit is still pending, it is always open to those persons to get impleaded in the suit or file fresh suit, subject to law of limitation. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 27.04.2007. pln