IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 805 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 27/04/2009 in WP NO : 8711 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Chatla Rajeswar, S/o. Gangaram, R/o. Kamareddy, Niamabad District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Niamabad District, 2 The Superintendent of Police, Niamabad District at Niamabad. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Kamareddy P.S. at Kamareddy, Niamabad District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Niamabad District. 5 The Chenetha Sahakara Sangham Limited, Kamareddy, Niamabad District. rep by its President .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.04.2009 made in WPMP No.11407 of 2009 in W.P. No.8711 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge granting conditional interim stay, the writ petitioner is in appeal. It is case of the appellant herein that he purchased mulgi bearing No. 9 in the premises No. 5-3-671/9, Ward No.5, Block No.3, abutting National High Way No. 7, near New Bus Station, Kamareddy, in Sy. No. 778, from her sister-in-law Smt. Chatla Triveni, vide Registered Sale Deed dated 21.5.2007. While so, when the members of the fifth respondent family interfered with the possession of the appellant and others on the ground that the land belongs to them, some of the mulgi owners filed civil suits and obtained status quo order. While so, the first respondent has passed orders dated 16.4.2007 directing the fourth respondent to take all possible steps to evict the occupants of the mulgies constructed in Sy.No. 778, inspite of status quo order being in vogue. It is his further that when the said property was already acquired by the Government for construction of RTC bus Station and as there is serious title dispute, neither the fifth respondent can approach the first respondent nor the first respondent can dispossess the occupants of the mulgies. While so, the members of the fifth respondent along with Assistant Director, Handlooms, have approached the appellant on 17.4.2009 asking him to vacate the mulgi, pursuant to the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the first respondent to get evicted the occupants of Mulgi No. 4,10 and 16 and when the appellant represented that there is no mention of getting vacated mulgi No.9 in the order dated 6.2.2009, they told him that mulgi No.10 is wrongly written instead of mulgi No.9. The learned Single Judge ordered interim stay of dispossession subject to the condition of the appellant herein paying a sum of Rs.1000/- per month towards rent to the fifth respondent from the month of May, 2009, without prejudice to the rights of the appellant and in default of such payment, it was ordered that the stay stands vacated and the fifth respondent shall be entitled to resume possession. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner is in appeal before us. Evidently, there are several disputed questions of fact. The appellant on the one hand says that he purchased the mulgi from her sister-in-law and again says that the property was already acquired by the Government for construction of RTC Bus Station, Kamareddy. In the backdrop of the disputed facts, without adverting to the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified in directing the appellant to pay Rs.1000/- to the fifth respondent, without prejudice to the rights of the appellant. Hence, we do not see any illegality in the order impugned. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar June 18, 2009 MAS