HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 17-12-2009 WRIT APPEAL No. 1425 OF 2009 Between: S. Yenkappa ... APPELLANT AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and five others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1425 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 04-11-2009 in Writ Petition No. 10678 of 2009, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. There is a dispute regarding an extent of Ac.1.03 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.56/E of Ogipur Village, Tandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. While the appellant claims that he holds Occupancy Right Certificate (ORC) in respect of the said land, respondent No.6 was granted quarry lease by respondent No.4 on 18- 11-2008. While O.S No. 135 of 2008 filed by the appellant for declaration of title is pending, O.S No. 104 of 2009 filed by respondent No.6 for injunction is also pending. As at present, injunction in the suit filed by respondent No.6 is operating against the appellant while an order of status quo pertaining to alienation of land by respondent No.6 is in force in the suit filed by the appellant. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against order granting lease in favour of respondent No.6. In this factual background, the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the appellant against grant of lease was disposed of by the learned single Judge with the direction that the validity of the lease depends upon the outcome of the pending suits. At the hearing, Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as his client is holding ORC, the order passed by the learned single Judge causes injustice to his client’s interest. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.6. The fact that the suit filed for declaration of title is pending is not in dispute. Therefore, we do not find any error in the direction given by the learned single that the validity of the lease granted in favour of respondent No.6 depends upon the outcome of the pending suits. If the appellant feels that he will be unduly denied the revenue from the land in question, he shall be free to file an application for deposit of a part of the income derived from the land in the pending suit. The appellant also can move the learned Junior Civil Judge, Tandur for disposal of the pending suits at an early date. If such an application is filed, we are sure that the learned Junior Civil Judge will take steps to dispose of the suits. Both the learned counsel assured the Court that their counter parts will cooperate for early disposal of the suits. Subject to the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, WAMP No. 2957 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17-12-2009 ks