IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NOS : 3457 AND 9005 OF 2004 W.P.NO.3457 of 2004 Between: 1 Mohd. Khader, S/o. Mohd. Ghouse, R/o.H.No.4-25-114/3, Wadi Mohamood, Ring Road, R.R.District. 2 Mohd. Shareef, S/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Raheem, R/o. Narsingi, [v] Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 3 Ghousia Bee, D/o. Late Mohd. Abdul Raheem, R/o. Narsingi, [v] Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 4 Mohd. Naseer, S/o.Late Babumiyan R/o.1-71, Narsingi, [v] Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 5 Mohd. Khaja S/o.Late Babumiyan R/o.1-73, Narsingi, [v] Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 6 Mohd. Sarwar S/o.Late Babumiyan R/o.Narsingi, [v] Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 7 Mohd. Anwar S/o.Late Babumiyan R/o.Narsingi, [v], Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 8 Mohd. Mohnsin S/o. Zainu Miyan Late, R/o.Narsingi, [v], Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 9 Kareem Bee W/o. Mohd. Jahangir Miyan, R/o.1-55, Narsingi, [v], Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. 10 Beejan Bee, W/o. Ahmed Hussain, R/o.Osmanbagh, Bahadurpura Back, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, R.R.District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad. 4 Sri Krishna Goseva Mandal ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners:MR V.ANANDA RAO FOR MS.K.N.VIJAYA LAKSHMI Counsel for respondents 1 to 3:AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.4:MR C.PRAKASH REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 9005 of 2004 Between: Mohd.Khader, S/o Mohd.Ghouse, R/o H.No.4-25-114/B, Wadie Mehmood, Ring Road, Rajendranagar (M), Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 3 The S.H.O. Narsingi Village, P.S.N.Narsingi, Rajendranagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 The District Collector, R.R.District at Laksikapool, Hyderabad. 5 The M.R.O. Rajendrangar Mandal, R.R.District. 6 The Sarpanch, Nareingi (V), Rajendranagar (M), Ranga Reddy District. 7 The Krishna Goseva mandal, Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar (M), R.R.District (Regd.Society), rep.by its Secretary. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR V.ANANDA RAO FOR MS.K.N.VIJAYA LAKSHMI Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for respondents 4 and 5:AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.6: NONE APPEARED Counsel for respondent No.7: MR C.Prakash Reddy SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Writ Petition No.3457 of 2004 is ﬁled for the following substantive relief: “For all the reasons stated above, we pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 as illegal, irregular and against the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Books Act 1971, in not implementing the orders of respondent No.1 in Case No.D4/9411/97 and D5/5592/1997, dated 30-9-2000 eﬀecting mutation/issuing the pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioners with regard to the land in Sy.Nos.167 and 169 situated at Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District by issuing a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.” Writ Petition No.9005 of 2004 is ﬁled for the following substantive relief: “For all the facts and circumstances stated above I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents, is illegal, high handed and in violation of Arts.14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India in not taking action against respondent No.7 to stop the illegal construction, in not receiving the complaint dated 8- 5-2004 to take action against the respondent No.7 from construction in the disputed land in Sy.Nos.167 and 169, situated at Narsing Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also pending ﬁnalization of the cases W.P.20372/2k and WP No.3457/04 and O.S.No.645/2000 by issuing a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.” It is agreed by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties that in view of disposal of W.P.No.23072 of 2000, these two writ petitions have become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed as such. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th September, 2008 vrn