IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 15267 of 2008 Between: 1 Chintamanedi Narasimha Rao S/o.Venkata Narayana Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) R/o.ITI Vidyut Colony Vatluru W.G District 2 Sivala Ranga Rao S/o.Subba Rao Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Komadavolu,Eluru,W.G District 3 Dasari Ganga Chalam S/o.Rama Rao Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Kothapeta, Eluru,W.G District 4 Datti Peda Ramalingeswara Surya Prakash S/o.Sambayya Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Kothapeta, Eluru,W.G District 5 Dasari Suryana Kantham S/o.Manikyala Rao Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Kothapeta, Eluru,W.G District 6 Reddy Radha Krishan S/oNarayana Rao Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Kothapeta, Eluru,W.G District 7 Dasari Tulasi Rao S/o.Maniyakyala Rao Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Kothapeta, Eluru,W.G District 8 Mutyala Rama Rao S/o.Venkata Ratnam Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Komadavolu Eluru,W.G District 9 M.Ratna Kumari W/o.Siva Kesava Rao Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Denduluru,Denduduluru(M) W.G District 10 Penumarthi Gopamma W/o.Rama Murthy Malkapuram(V) Eluru(M) Denduluru,Denduduluru(M) W.G District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Director General Of Police A.P Lakdi-Ka Pool Hyderabad 2 The Govet of A.P Rep.by its Secretary Home Department Secretariat Hyderabad 3 The Superintendent of Police Eluru,W.G District 4 The Police Station Eluru Rural Eluru W.G District rep.by its Station House Officer 5 The Auto Nagar Association Eluru W.G District Rep.by its President 6 The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Eluru, West Godavari district, rep. by its Zonal Manager. 7 Talam Venkateswara Rao 8 Yerra Krishna 9 Desamsetti Venkata Rao 10 B.V.Ramana Rao (Respondents 6 to 10 are impleaded as per Court order dt.14.8.08 in WPMP.No.22339 of 2008) .....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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus direct the rspondents 1to 4 give protection to the petitioners from illegal activities of the 5th respondent by preventing the petitioners from entering into agricultural fields of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15267 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide protection to the petitioners from the illegal activities of 5th respondent. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 4.12.2008 directed the respondents 1 to 4 to give protection to the petitioners as and when the 5th petitioner tries to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. Now a vacate stay petition has been filed by the respondents seeking to vacate the said order. It appears, the subject land was acquired by invoking proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, which was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.32806 of 1998. The said writ petition was dismissed on 27.8.1999. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Appeal No.1337 of 1999 was filed. A Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the said writ appeal by judgment dated 23.7.2001, set aside the impugned notification issued under Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (6th respondent herein) filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while granting leave in Civil Appeal No.304-305 of 2005, also granted interim stay. Thereafter, petitioners herein filed vacate stay petition. The said petition was dismissed on 22.10.2007. It appears, thereafter, petitioners filed I.A.Nos.6-7/07 in Civil Appeal No.304-305/05. The said applications were disposed of by order dated 1.2.2008, which reads as under: “The present applications have been filed for vacating interim stay granted by this Court on 10th January, 2005. According to the applicants, they are in possession whereas according to the appellant, it is in possession. After hearing counsel for the parties, we direct that status quo regarding possession as it existed on 10th January, 2005 be maintained till disposal of the appeals. IAs are disposed of accordingly”. Now the present writ petition is filed stating that the petitioners are in possession of the property, firstly for the reason that during the pendency of Writ Petition No.32806 of 1998, they were directed to harvest the crop and secondly for the reason Writ Appeal No.1337 of 1999 was allowed and all the proceedings that were taken up under the Land Acquisition Act are treated as non-est. Even otherwise, petitioners are in physical possession of the property. Since the respondents are interfering into the possession of the petitioners, they sought police protection. As noticed above, initially, this Court granted police protection by order dated 4.12.2008, and now a vacate stay petition is filed seeking to vacate the said order. The learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners have always been in possession of the property and they were never dispossessed at any point of time. The physical possession of the property always remained with the petitioners only. Further, in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal, it must be deemed that the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act are non-est in the eye of law. Even the Supreme Court, considering the submissions made by the petitioners, granted order directing the parties to maintain status quo as was available in the year 2005. Therefore, petitioners are in physical possession of the property and in view of the status quo orders granted by the Supreme Court, they are entitled for police protection. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents seriously disputed the possession of the petitioners and contended that since matter is subjudice before the Supreme Court, and unless and until the matter is settled by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitled for any orders from this Court. It is further contended that in view of the stay granted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals, possession has been delivered in favour of sixth respondent, which in turn delivered possession to respondents 7 to 10. Therefore, in view of the orders of the Supreme Court, petitioners have to maintain status quo. In view of the interim direction granted by this Court on 4.12.2008, the respondents are creating a scene. Be that as it may, since the matter is seized up by the Supreme Court, it may not be possible for this Court to adjudicate upon as to factum of possession of petitioners vis-à-vis respondents. The Apex Court granted status quo to be maintained as to the possession of the property as was available in the year 2005. May be, petitioners pleaded and asserted that they have been in possession of the property, but they cannot seek one direction from the Apex Court, and Police Protection from this Court. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interim direction granted by this Court on 4.12.2008 is liable to be vacated and accordingly vacated. It is always open for the petitioners to approach the Apex Court and work out their remedies as available under law, otherwise any orders passed by this Court in this writ petition or giving a finding as to the subsequent events, it amounts to circumventing the status quo orders passed by the Apex Court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that with the above observation the writ petition itself can be disposed of. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.12.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in (3) days. B/o DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.15267 of 2008 17.12.2008