IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24707 of 2001 Between: Potluri Srinivasa Prasad S/o.Sri.P.V.Krishna Rao, R/o. Plot No.14, Anand Nagar, Thokatta, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Princiial Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 3 Mandall Revenue Officer Marredpally Mandal, Secunderabad. 4 Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep.by its Executive Officer, Near City Civil Court Compound, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners by demolition of compound wall in respect of petitioners' possession in plot bearing No179 admeasuring 324.44 sq. yards in survey No.74/6,Mahendra Hills, East Marredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad District as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in breach of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with in any manner by demolition, dispossession or otherwise with the Petitioners rights over the said property except in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE FOR R MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.24707 OF 2001 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of Plot No.179 admeasuring 324.44 sq. yards in Sy.No.74/6, Mahendra Hills, East Marredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad District and demolishing the compound wall as arbitrary and illegal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material on record, the 1st respondent herein instituted L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 on the file of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, in which the Co-operative Housing Society from which the vendor of the petitioner purchased the land in question was arrayed as 6th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that though the said land grabbing case is pending before the Special Court and the claim made by the Government has not yet been decided, the respondents have been illegally attempting to interfere with the possession of the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons who purchased the land from the society. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal, it is stated that Land Grabbing Case No.167 of 1997 is pending before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act with regard to Sy.No.74 of Marredpally Paigah Village. In the circumstances, it is for the Special Court to consider the rival claims of the parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law and it is neither necessary nor proper for this Court to express any opinion as to the title claimed by the petitioner. This Court, while directing rule nisi, by order, dated 12.12.2001, directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property in question in any manner whatsoever and the said order continued in operation all through. Hence, without going into merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with possession of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question without following due process of law till LGC.No.167 of 1997 is heard and decided in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of the case and it is open to both the parties to agitate the rights claimed by them before the Special Court. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.11.2008 gbs