IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6511 of 2008 Between: 1 Patta Khader S/o. Late Patta Nanne Saheb, Santa Bazar, Pattavari Veedhi, Vinukonda Town, Guntur Dist. 2 Patta Rahim S/o. Late Patta Nanne Saheb, R/o. Santa Bazar, Vinukonda Town, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1The Special Tribunal, Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Tribunal- Principal District Judge, Guntur. 2Thurumella Seetharamanjaneyulu, S/o. Pattabhiramaiah R/o. Old Market Street, D.No.24-201, Vinukonda Town, Guntur Dist. 3Thurumella Ramakrishna S/o. Seetharamanjaneyulu, R/o. Old Market Street, D.No.24-201, Vinukonda Town, Guntur Dist. 4Thurumella Pattabhirama Prasad S/o. Seetharamanjaneyulu, R/o. Old Market Street, D.No.24-201, Vinukonda Town, Guntur Dist. 5Thurumella Eswara Krishna S/o. Seetharamanjaneyulu, R/o. Old Market Street, D.No.24-201, Vinukonda Town, Guntur Dist. 6Mullamuru Shaik Meera Saheb, S/o. Masthan Markapur Road, Vinukonda, Guntur Dist. 7Mullamuru Shaik Masthan Vali, S/o. Meera Saheb Markapur Road, Vinukonda, Guntur Dist. 8Sandrapali Syed R/o. Peda Rana Hussain Bazar, Vinukonda, Guntur Dist. 9Kota Kishore Babu S/o. Subba Rao Lawyer Street, Vinukonda Town, Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the 1st respondent herein in taking cognizance of L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006 dated 23.06.2006 when admittedly the competent Civil Court Viz., the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta is seized of the very subject matter in December 2005 and passed interim orders in I.A.No.27 of 2005 in O.S.No.7 of 2005 dated 15.04.2006. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.E.V.BHAGIRATHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6511 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to restrain the 1st respondent herein from taking cognizance of L.G.O.P. No.1 of 2006 dated 23.06.2006 when admittedly the competent Civil Court Viz., the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta has seized of the very subject matter in December 2005 and passed interim orders in I.A.No.27 of 2005 in O.S.No.7 of 2005 dated 15.04.2006. It is the grievance of the petitioners that respondents-2 to 5 filed L.G.O.P.No:1 of 2006 under section 7 (A) (1) of A.P. Land Grabbing Act against the petitioners and respondents 6 to 9 on 23.6.2006 for a declaration that they are the land grabbers of the petition schedule property. It is also their further case that the 2nd respondent alone has already filed O.S.No.7 and 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta against the petitioners and respondents 6 to 9 and 19 others seeking for a permanent injunction and subsequently, the suit was transferred to the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopeta and the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet has also granted a temporary injunction in I.A.No:27 of 2005 in O.S.No:7 of 2005 on 15.4.2006 and the said suit is pending. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioners that in case of violation of the temporary injunction orders, the remedy that is available for the 2nd respondent is under the provisions of order 38 rule 2 (A) C.P.C but not under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. The fact that remains undisputed is that the 2nd respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No:7 of 2005 and has also obtained a temporary injunction. Subsequently, respondents-2 to 5 have filed the L.G.O.P.1 of 2006 before the Tribunal. At this stage, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the 2nd respondent thought that the petitioners along with others violated the orders of the Civil Court, the remedy that is available for him, is to invoke the provisions of order 38 rule 2 (A) C.P.C but not under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act inasmuch as, the subject matter has already been seized by a competent Civil Court. If that being the case, it is not known as to what has prevented the petitioners to agitate their rights before the appropriate forum instead of choosing to file the present writ petition, which is nothing but amounting to abuse of process of the Courts. Hence, We see no merits in this writ petition and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate their rights before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice S. Ashok Kumar Dated:27.03.2008 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI. JUSTICE S.ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO :6511 of 2008 (Division Bench Order delivered by Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 27/03/2008 ,