IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 23650 of 2007 Between: Ch.Bhupal Goud, S/o. Late Ch. Ayodhya, r/o Flat No. 302, Odeon Enclave, Domalguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. rep by Revenue Divisional Officer, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. K. Venkata Subbamma, W/o. Purnaiah, R/o. Smitha Towers, Tikkle Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 K. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Purnaiah, R/o. Smitha Towers, Tikkle Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam Branch Visakhapatnam, Rep by its Manager, R/o. Smitha Towers, Tikkle Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to order passed in I.A.No.262 of 2006 in L.G.C.No. 27 of 1991, dated 12-9- 2007 and QUASH the same by duly declaring the same is contrary to law and illegal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3: SRI K.V. RAJENDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.4: DR. K. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :23650 of 2007 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the order dated 12.9.2007 passed by the Special Court in I.A.No.262 of 2006 in L.G.C.No:27 of 1991. The petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in the above L.G.C., filed the above I.A. seeking to dispose of the L.G.C. with suitable directions in view of the Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.859 of 1991 and batch, which is confirmed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.10415 & 10416 of 2001 giving a direction to the State to put a quietus to the litigation by regularizing the possession of the petitioner herein. The Special Court having observed that either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal referred to by the petitioner, the High Court did not give any finding about lawful possession of the application schedule land by the petitioner in the above I.A., dismissed the above application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner, who is R1 in the above L.G.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 and the Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent-Bank and perused the entire material available on record as well as the order impugned. Admittedly, the main L.G.C. is still pending before the Special Court and it is coming for hearing. At this stage, the application filed by the petitioner seeking directions relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court in respect of the lawful possession of the schedule land, is not tenable and the question as to the lawful possession of the parties has to be decided in the main L.G.C. after affording an opportunity to both the parties. In that view of the matter and in view of the rival contentions raised by the Counsels as to the lawful possession of the application schedule land and in view of the fact that the main L.G.C. is still pending and it is at the stage of hearing after completion of the evidence on either side, We feel that it would suffice if a direction is issued to dispose of the main L.G.C. within a period of three months, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the order impugned herein. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty of this Court to file the additional evidence, if required in the above L.G.C. Considering the above submission, We feel it just and proper to give liberty to the petitioner herein to file additional evidence, which may be considered in accordance with law. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:11.3.2008 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 23650 of 2007 (Order of Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 11.3.2008