HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITON NO. 6694 OF 2005 Thursday, the Third day of March, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Smt. Mamata Reddy Tummala Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased an extent of 422.77 Sq. yards in Sy. No. 74/9 situated at Mahendra Hills, East Marredpally, Secunderabad, from Shashi Bansal through a registered sale deed document No. 104/96 dated 6.12.1995, registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. The said Shashi Bansal, purchased the said property from Pravin Chagganlal Barai under a registered document dated 30.6.1982, which was allotted to him by Seva Mandal Cooperative Housing Society. The said Society had purchased an extent of Ac.24.00 in Sy No. 74/9 of East Marredpally, Secunderabad through a Registered Sale Deed document No. 823/1982 and the Ministry of Defence has granted exemption under Sec. 20(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 exempting from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act vide the Government proceedings No.ULC/DLC/DLPS/1-411/78 dated 24.3.1981. While so, it is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally, the third respondent herein, started interfering with the same. Hence, the writ petition. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally filed counter stating that as many as seven Cooperative Societies have occupied an extent of Ac.192.00 in Sy. No. 74 of Marredpally village tracing the title from Paigah authorities and the Government claimed that property and filed L.G.C. No. 167 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court against the Cooperative Housing Society and the L.G.C. is pending. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the said L.G.C. filed by the Government is dismissed, against which a writ petition is said to have been filed and no interim orders have been granted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that as the L.G.C. filed by the government is said to have been dismissed, as long as the Government do not succeed in the attempts to claim the said property, none of the respondents can interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah March 03, 2011 MAS