HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W.A.No.199 of 2009 JUDGMENT(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by an interlocutory order dated 19.01.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.494 of 2009 in W.P.No.414 of 2009. 2. There appears to be some dispute with regard to a plot of land in Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. According to the appellant, it is in lawful possession of that plot of land and running a school. According to learned counsel for the respondents, the land was acquired way back in 1985 for the benefit of the Municipal Corporation and the appellant is an encroacher of the plot of land. 3. It appears that a resolution was passed by the Municipal Corporation to the effect that the land is required to run school. Taking advantage of this, the appellant set up a school and is running it on that plot of land. 4. The dispute in the case pertains to the title to the plot of land as mentioned above. According to the appellant, it is the owner of the land, while according to the respondents, the appellant is an encroacher. 5. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge directed with a view not to disturb an existing school that it may continue to run in the premises till the end of March, 2009, but thereafter it will be competent for the Municipal Corporation to take possession of the land without necessity of issuing notice and proceedings. 6. The appellant is now before us. 7. As mentioned above, the dispute is not about running the school but about the title to the land in question. While the utility of the school may or may not exist, it is certainly used as a weapon by the appellant to continue in possession of the land. 8. We are of the opinion that this should not be permitted. The learned single Judge had permitted the school to run till the end of March, 2009 and more than two years have gone, but the appellant is still continuing to run the school on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court. 9. In our opinion, the interim order should no longer continue with regard to the running of the school. Accordingly, we direct that the appellant may continue possession over the land in dispute until the writ petition is disposed of. However, the school should be closed by March, 2012. 10. With the above direction, the writ appeal stands disposed of. 11. The miscellaneous application also stands disposed of. ____________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMAD, J Date:16.11.2011 Sj W.A.No.199 of 2009 Page 2 of 2