IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4697 of 1998 Between: 1 Gulam Bia Bani, S/o. Gulam Rasol, R/o. Kundanpalli Village of Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. 2 Bashu Mian, S/o. Aulian Saheb, R/o. Kundanpalli village of Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. 3 K.Narayana Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, R/o. Kundanpalli village of Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 THe District Collector, Karimnagar. 3 The Joint Collector, Karimnagar. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, peddapalli, Karimnagar Dist. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. .....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 to issue any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Certiorary calling for the erecords relating to impugned proceedings bearing No. B6/9092/96 dated 19-1-1998 issued by the joint Colector, Karimnagar and quashing the orders passed in the above proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.I.AGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.4697 OF 1998 ORDER: The relief sought for in the writ petition is to quash the proceedings of the Joint Collector, Karimnagar dated 19.01.1988. In the order under challenge dated 19.01.1988 the 3rd respondent upheld its earlier order dated 01.06.1985 passed under Section 166-B (2) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F. While Sri I.Aga Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would raise several contentions, both legal and factual, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine all of them since the order under challenge is required to be quashed, and the writ petition allowed, on the short ground that the order dated 01.06.1985 which has been directed to be revived is an order which this Court had already quashed in W.P.No.18061 of 1988 dated 02.02.1989. It is necessary to note that the Joint Collector, in his order dated 01.06.1985, had ordered for cancellation of the changes made during Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 and had directed correction of the village records of Kundanpalli village to the extent of the survey numbers in question. This order came to be challenged in W.P.No.18061 of 1988 and this Court, in its order dated 02.02.1989 observed that before any action was initiated under Section 166-B of the Land Revenue Act, the Joint Collector should give a notice to the concerned including the petitioners and after disposal of the objections tendered, if any, action could be initiated. This Court further observed that since both parties claimed that they were in possession, ends of justice would be met if status-quo as on the date of the order with regards possession was directed to be maintained. With these observations this Court quashed the order dated 01.06.1985 and allowed the writ petition. Once an order is quashed by this Court, and the order of this Court has attained ﬁnality, the question of reviving such an illegal order by way of a subsequent proceedings does not arise for it is well settled that it is not for the executive to sit in judgment over judicial orders passed by this Court or for that matter any other Court. While the Joint Collector, in compliance with the orders passed in W.P.No.18061 of 1988 dated 02.02.1989, was entitled to pass an order afresh, he could not have revived the order quashed by this Court earlier. The impugned proceedings is liable to be quashed on this short ground leaving it open to the respondents to pass orders afresh. Sri I.Aga Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that since several other grounds are required to be put-forth in addition to the grounds of challenge submitted earlier, the petitioners should be permitted to raise additional grounds. The request is reasonable. I, accordingly, direct that the 3rd respondent, in case the petitioners submit a further representation raising additional ground within a period of six weeks from today, shall consider the grounds and other contentions raised in the said representation also, while passing an order afresh. Learned Counsel would also bring to the notice of this Court that W.P.M.P.No.17673 of 2001 has been ﬁled wherein the amount received from the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation was requested to be deposited into a nationalized bank so that interest would accrue thereupon. The W.P.M.P. has been ﬁled pending disposal of the writ petition and no orders have been passed therein. Since the writ petition itself is being disposed of, I see no reason to now order the W.P.M.P. since the petitioners can, if they succeed before the 3rd respondent, always be adequately compensated both with regards the principal and the interest, if any, due to them. Learned Counsel would also submit that the petitioners are in possession of the property and that, pending ﬁnal orders being passed afresh by the Collector, their possession should not be disturbed. As noted hereinabove, this Court, while allowing W.P.No.18061 of 1988 dated 02.02.1989, had directed maintenance of status- quo. Even in the present writ petition this Court, in its order in W.P.M.P.No.5634 of 1998 dated 19.02.1988, had directed maintenance of status-quo. Since the order of status-quo has been in force for more than a decade, ends of justice would be met if both parties were directed to maintain status-quo with regards possession till the 3rd respondent passes ﬁnal orders afresh. The impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 18-08-2008 GS