THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4587 of 2008 Date: .11.2011 Between: Ambika Prasad and others. ..... Petitioners. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., through Sub Inspector of Police, Neredmet P.S., Cyberabad, Hyderabad another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4587 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are the accused. A complaint was lodged against them by the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri alleging that the petitioners grabbed Ac.01-00 guntas of land in Survey No.278, Malkajgiri and that the accused/petitioners consequently deserve to be punished. The complaint was registered as First Information Report under Sections 447 & 427 IPC. A charge sheet was later filed under Sections 447 & 427 IPC as well as under Sections 3 & 5 of Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, (‘Land Grabbing Act, 1982’, for short). Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the present petition for quashing the charge sheet. 2. Sri M.S.N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that the possession of the petitioners has a long legal record and that the M.R.O, Malkajgiri deliberately suppressed the same when he lodged the complaint with the police to wrek vengeance against the petitioners for lodging a contempt case in C.C.No.340 of 2008 in W.P.No.23716 of 2007 on the file of this Court. 3. The petitioners contend that they are the lawful purchasers of the property of Ac.1-00 guntas of land from the defendants in O.S.No.127 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff, Ranga Reddy District. They claimed that they purchased the property on 01-08-1993. 4. On the other hand, Smt.Y. Ratna Prabha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners admittedly are in possession of the property, that the property belonged to Government and that the petitioners, therefore are land grabbers being persons in possession of the property. She contended that once the petitioners admit their possession over the property, the offences under Sections 447 & 427 IPC as well as under Sections 3 & 5 of the Land Grabbing Act, 1982 are made out. Her claim is that the petitioners shall have to establish their case before the trial Court. 5. As already pointed out, there is a long drawn legal history in this case. The petitioners had quarrels with their vendors leading to filing of O.S.No.127 of 1985. It was a suit for perpetual injunction. A compromise was recorded between the 1st petitioner herein as the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.127 of 1985 and his vendors on 31-01-1986. Inter alia, the defendants in the suit who are the vendors of the 1st petitioner acknowledged the possession of the 1st petitioner over Ac.1-00 guntas of land, which is the disputed property herein through the compromise. It is the case of the petitioners that a family settlement was reached in 1996 wherein the petitioners became entitle to parts of the Ac.1-00 guntas of land. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that in 1998, Government suddenly made a claim over the petition schedule property on the ground that the Government is the owner of the property. 6. G.O.Ms.No.515, dated 19-04-2003 is a government order providing for regularization of unauthorized occupations. In December 2003, the petitioners applied to Government on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.515 seeking for regularization of their occupation of the property. Leaving the application of the petitioners as it is, M.R.O would appear to have tried to dispossess the petitioners from the schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.19025 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners. The High Court referred to Memo No.48704/Assn.V (2)/2004-1, dated 03-04-2004 and held that the possession of the petitioners was recognized by the Government. The High Court consequently directed the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to dispose of the representation of the petitioners within a period of four months. It may be noticed that stay was granted pending disposal of the applications of the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that instead of disposing of the representation of the petitioners made under G.O.Ms.No.515, Government attempted to dispossess the petitioners once again in September, 2007, so much so, it became necessary for the petitioners to file W.P.No.24391 of 2007 seeking for orders against the Government. Statusquo orders were passed in W.P.No.24391 of 2007 on 17-09-2007. 8. After grant of statusqo orders in the writ petition, the Government disposed of the applications of the petitioners on 22-09-2007 rejecting the request of the petitioners to regularize the possession of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this rejection was a vengeanceful action on the part of the Government and that the order of rejection was not a speaking order. 9. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioners had no alternative but to move the High Court again in W.P.No.23716 of 2007. The High Court ordered WP No.23716 of 2007 to be clubbed with W.P.No.18977 of 2007. As the M.R.O did not bother with the orders in the writ petition and has again attempted to dispossess the petitioners, the petitioners filed a contempt petition in C.C.No.340 of 2008 on 13-03-2008. It is the case of the petitioners that as a counter blast to C.C.No.340 of 2008, the complaint in the present case was lodged by the petitioners. 10. Apart from the legal history reported above, there is another development. It would appear that Government passed another order in G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-2-2008 providing fresh rules for regularization of unauthorized occupation of government lands. The petitioners applied on 12-05-2008 for regularization of their possession. It is in this background that the petitioners filed a petition in W.P.No.7615 of 2011. Referring to order in W.A.No.667 of 2009, the Court ordered that till the representation of the petitioners is not decided, they cannot be evicted from the lands under their occupation. 11. It may be noticed that usually the question of a party seeking for a regularization of their lands arises only when such a party is not the owner of the property. If the petitioners claim that they are the owners of the property, perhaps their application for such a petition either under G.O.Ms.No.515 or under G.O.Ms.No.166 would be redundant. The very filing of the applications under G.O.Ms.Nos.515 & 166 presupposes that the petitioners admit that they are not the owners of the property and that they are in possession of the government property. Prima facie, this would be tantamount to trespass as well as the commission of the offences under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act, 1982. 12. However, there is an unambiguous order in W.P.No.7615 of 2011 that the possession of the petitioners therein should be protected pending disposal of their application filed under G.O.Ms.No.166. It may be noticed that petitioners 1 & 3 herein alone are the petitioners in W.P.No.7615 of 2011. Be that as it may, the order of the Court is that their possession should not be disturbed till their applications are disposed of. Once the possession of the petitioners is protected, the petitioners cannot be considered to be in unauthorized occupation of the property. Prima facie, the petitioners thus are protected by the orders of the Court in W.P.No.7615 of 2011. I do not consider that hyper technicalities should be observed to hold that petitioners 1 & 3 alone are parties to W.P.No.7615 of 2011 and that the respondents should be permitted to proceed against the remaining petitioners. The underlining principles in the orders in W.P.No.7615 of 2011 applies to all the petitioners. 13. It was observed in PENTYALA RAJA Vs. GOGUMALLA CHINA KOTAIAH[1] that when there is a stay regarding the possession or when there is a dispute regarding the possession of the property, there cannot be any offence under Sections 447 & 427 IPC. This decision would apply to the present case in all fours. There is an order from the High Court that the possession of the petitioners shall not be disturbed until their applications filed under G.O.Ms.No.166 are disposed of. As long as the orders in W.P.No.7615 of 2011 are pending, the Criminal Court cannot proceed against the petitioners. At the same time, it is not as though the criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed. They would become redundant in the event the applications of the petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.166 are allowed. Otherwise, the proceedings are liable to continue after disposal of G.O.Ms.No.166. Till then the proceedings in the Criminal Court deserve to be stayed. 14. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of. The proceedings before the Criminal Court in respect of Crime No.151 of 2008 of Neredmet Police Station are stayed till the relief in W.P.No.7615 of 2011 is fulfilled and worked out. [1] 2006 (3) ALT (Crl.)137 (A.P)