IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 343 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/04/2007 in WP NO : 9431 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Bhanu Bee, W/o. Late Mohd Hasheem, R/o. H.No. 7-1-308/A/30, B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar,' Hyderabad - 500 018. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,. Rep. by its District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & NEERAJA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANATHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.343 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard both sides and at their request the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant, who is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, filed this appeal inter alia assailing the order, dated 30.4.2007, passed by a learned single Judge of his Court in W.P.No.9431 of 2007 whereunder the relief sought for by the appellant to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to submit status report as per Rule 6 (2), (3), (4) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988(for brevity “the Rules”), was rejected. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact that L.G.O.P filed by the petitioner in 2005 is pending before the learned Special Tribunal-cum- District Judge, held that when the matter is pending there for getting the formalities completed to enable the learned Tribunal to proceed with the case, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of Mandamus and the petitioner’s remedy is to approach the same Tribunal seeking reddressal of her grievance. The learned single judge further held that if the petitioner’s allegation is that the second respondent, in collusion with the land grabbers (who are respondents in the LGOP), is not sending status report, it is always open to the learned District Judge to take appropriate action in the matter. Hence, the present appeal. During the course of arguments, both the learned counsel represented that status report has already been filed by the second respondent. Having regard to the note thereof, the submissions made under the Rules (2) to (4) of Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988 are obvious. This Court has already taken a view that it would not in any way refrain the Tribunal from numbering the applications filed by the appellant on the ground of encroachment, and after giving necessary opportunity only, the other consequences as contemplated under law will follow. In view of the same, the entire approach of the Tribunal, brought to the notice of this Court, in not numbering the applications for want of filing of the status report, as contemplated under Rule 6 (2) to (4) of the Rules is not correct. However, in view of submission of the status report, as sought for by the appellant, nothing survives in this appeal. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. However, the Tribunal shall proceed with the LGOP case, duly numbering the applications, and dispose of the same on merits, after giving opportunity to both the parties. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO __________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date:1.9.2008 mrb