IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19428 OF 2007 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1429 OF 2009 Dt.14.12.2009 Between: Balaka Rama Rao and others … Appellants/Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: G.P for Revenue Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 12: Sri M. Sashibhushan Rao THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19428 OF 2007 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1429 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) Though the Writ Appeal arises out of an interlocutory order, since both the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties agreed for disposal of the Writ Petition itself, we have taken up the Writ Petition along with the Writ Appeal for hearing and disposal. The Writ Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners feeling aggrieved by order dt.4.11.2009 in W.V.M.P. No.3827 of 2008 and W.P.M.P. No.24993 of 2007 in W.P. No.19428 of 2007, whereby the learned Single Judge directed both the appellants and respondent Nos.4 to 12 that they shall not enter the land in dispute pending the Writ Petition. A perusal of the prayer in the Writ Petition shows that the appellants have prayed for an innocuous relief of directing respondent No.1 to consider the report of respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, dt.23.08.2005. In our opinion, respondent No.1 shall take an appropriate decision on the above-mentioned report of the Tahsildar pertaining to the claim of the appellants for grant of patta in respect of the land in dispute. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition itself. Accordingly, W.P. No.19428 of 2007 is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider and take appropriate decision on the report dt.23.08.2005, after calling for objections from respondent Nos.4 to 12 and considering the same. Respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate order on the report of the Tahsildar within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order shall not be construed by respondent No.1 as our taking any particular opinion on the report of the Tahsildar. At the hearing, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants, submitted that his clients have raised paddy crop and that on account of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, they are not permitted to harvest the crop. It is not the claim of the contesting respondents that they have raised the crop. If crop has been raised, it is reasonable to presume that it is only the appellants, who have raised the crop. Therefore, if paddy crop is in existence, respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall permit the appellants to harvest the same pending passing of order by respondent No.1. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition, W.A.M.P. Nos.2961 and 2968 of 2009, filed by the appellants – petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14.12.2009 bnr