IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2119 of 2009 Between: Ahmed Muneer Uddin ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue (UC-II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2119 of 2009 ORDER: According to the petitioner, his vendor viz., Mohd. Ismail purchased the property from the respondent No.3 under an unauthorized document. In-turn, the petitioner also purchased the same under an unauthorized document from the said Ismail and he became the owner and possessor of the said property. While so, the 3rd respondent, being aware of the fact that the petitioner has purchased the property, filed an application before the 1st and 2nd respondents seeking regularization of the land in her favour under G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29-07-2002. The 1st respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent recommending for regularization in favour of the 3rd respondent and accordingly, the 1st respondent also issued G.O.Ms.No.541, dated 10-05-2006. When the 3rd respondent, on the strength of the said G.O., trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 10-01-2008 requesting to send proposals for the cancellation of G.O.Ms.No.541, dated 10-05-2006. The 2nd respondent conducted enquiry and addressed a letter dated 20-06-2008 to the 1st respondent stating that as per the enquiry, the 3rd respondent is not staying in the said property and further stated that the recommendation for regularization in favour of the 3rd respondent is made by mistake of fact. Therefore, the petitioner requested the 1st respondent to cancel the G.O.Ms.No.541, dated 10-05- 2006. But the 1st respondent without considering the documents and written submissions filed by the petitioner, passed orders in favour of the 3rd respondent rejecting the plea of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 2. Be that as it may, it appears respondent No.3, to avoid all the confusion, has already filed a civil suit before the V Court of City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and for recovery of possession against the subject land and the petitioner is the sole defendant therein, and the said suit is pending disposal as on today. 3. However, from the facts narrated above, it is clear that the petitioner has not attained any transferable right under the law of the subject land. This, of course, is the subject matter of the civil suit which is pending between both the parties. 4. Under those circumstances, while upholding the order dated 20-12-2008 and the G.O.M.s.No.541, dated 10-05-2006, issued by the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to maintain status quo as to the possession of the petitioner during pendency of the suit filed by the 3rd respondent. However, the same shall be subject to the result of the said suit. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ 09th October 2009 kvr