IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27182 of 2006 Between: Poonamchand, s/o Mohanlal, r/o Osman Shahi, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, represented by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 Additional Commissioner, South Zone, Charminar, Hyderabad. 3 Asst.City Planner, Circle No.I, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, Hyderabad District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nampally mandal, Hyderabad. 6. M.Jayakrishna S/o.late Jangaiah @ Jagannadham, 53 years, H.No.6-3-609/20, Anand Nagar, Madhura Apartments, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. (Impleaded as per order dated 09.10.2007 passed in WPMP No.24510 of 2007) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents and their men in interfering with the petitioner's rights in relation to the petitioner's property admeasuring ac.0.30 guntas in Sy.No.17 and Ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.19 bearing premises No.15-5- 581/1, 15-5-581/2 & 15-5-581/3 situated at Thotaguda Village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondents and their men not to interfere with petitioners rights over the said property admeasuring ac.0.30 guntas in Sy.No.17 and ac.0.24 guntas in Sy.No.19 bearing premises No.15-5-581/1, 15-5-581/2 & 15-5-581/3 situated at Thotaguda Village, Nampally mandal, Hyderabad District in any manner and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: G.P. FOR REVENUE. Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Mr. V.SRINIVAS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Poonamchand assailing the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in interfering with his rights in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas comprising Sy.No.17 and Ac.0.24 guntas comprising Sy.No.19, situated at Thotaguda village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad. 2. The father of the petitioner and his uncle purchased Ac.0.30 guntas in S.No.17 and Ac.0.24 guntas in S.No.19 under an un-registered sale deed on 11.02.1957 from Mali Muthemma. His father Mohanlal died in 1960 and whereas his uncle Dhanulal died in the year 1979. He and his cousins are in possession of the property. He approached the District Revenue Oﬃcer for correction of entries in the revenue records. The District Revenue Oﬃcer, after a detailed enquiry issued proceedings in No.B2/139/87, dated 07.03.1987 directing the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Musheerabad Mandal, to correct the entries. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer eﬀected mutation in the name of the petitioner and his brothers. Two years thereafter, Smt.Laxmamma and another claiming to be Legal Representatives of Mali Muthemma ﬁled an appeal challenging the order dated 07.03.1987. Their appeal ended in dismissal on 22.06.1989. The said Laxmamma and another challenged the order of the District Revenue Oﬃcer before the Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 31.12.1990 directing the parties to get their rights established in civil Court. Challenging the same the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.5603 of 1991 and it came to be disposed of on 16.12.1994 directing both the parties to approach the Civil Court. The petitioner ﬁled a suit being O.S.No.1796 of 1997 on the ﬁle of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the suit ended in decree on 23.10.1997. The defendants therein ﬁled an appeal being A.S.No.14 of 1998 on the ﬁle of X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the appeal ended in dismissal on 24.09.2001. The appellants therein ﬁled Second Appeal and it is pending disposal. Whileso, the Joint Collector, Hyderabad District, issued proceedings declaring the lands in S.Nos.17 and 19 of Thotaguda village as escheat property. The petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.34794 of 1998 challenging the proceedings of the Joint Collector. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 31.08.2005. The respondents 1 to 3 came to the premises owned by the petitioner and started removing the structures thereon without putting on notice to him. Hence, the writ petition. 3. 6th respondent filed counter-affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent. 5. There is a conﬂict of interest between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. It is the case of the 6th respondent that he is in possession of the lands claimed by the petitioner. However, this is not the forum to adjudicate on the rights of the petitioner and the 6th respondent. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3-Corporation submits that the respondents 1 to 3 are not contemplating to interfere with the possession of anybody in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas comprising Sy.No.17 and Ac.0.24 guntas comprising Sy.No.19, situated at Thotaguda village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad. A further submission has been made that the respondents 1 to 3 put up a barbed wire fencing and in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1353 of 2007, the barbed wire fencing is removed to some extent so as to enable the petitioner to have access to the said land. 7. In view of the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 that the respondents 1 to 3 are not interfering with the possession of anybody in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 guntas comprising Sy.No.17 and Ac.0.24 guntas comprising Sy.No.19, situated at Thotaguda village, Nampally Mandal, Hyderabad, the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 are trying to interfere with his possession has no merit. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}