THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 5765 of 2009 O R D E R: It appears, this writ petition is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.386 Revenue (Assignment-III) Department dated 2.3.2009, issued by 1st respondent in favour of 4th respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. Under the impugned G.O., the rights over an extent of 578 Sq. yards of land in Sy.No.403/151 of Shaikpet village and Mandal have been transferred in favour of 4th respondent. The case of the petitioners is that their ancestor Veeraiah, was the original pattadar of Sy.No.403/6 (old), new Sy.No.151/2 of Shaikpet village, corresponding to T.S. No. 4 and the total extent of the land in Sy.No.151/2 was Ac.5-00 and the petitioners have inherited the same from the said Veeraiah through their forefathers. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land held by respondent No.4, in whose favour G.O.Ms.No.386 was issued for regularization of a piece of land of 578 Sq. yards in Sy.No.403/151 of Shaikpet village and Mandal, is the land owned by the ancestors of the petitioners. Therefore, the very issuance of the G.O. was arbitrary and illegal. While admitting the writ petition, interim suspension as prayed for was granted. Now a vacate stay petition is filed seeking to vacate the said interim order. However, with the consent of both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. Heard both sides. While the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the issuance of impugned G.O. in favour of 4th respondent is illegal and arbitrary for the reason that the land was originally owned by the ancestor of the petitioners and that the petitioners have inherited the same, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Sri Raghuveer Reddy strenuously contended that earlier in a writ petition, this Court directed the Collector to conduct survey and decide as to the boundaries of the land held by the petitioners. In pursuance to that, the Collector has already conducted a survey and demarcated the land wherein a portion of the land had fallen in Sy.No.403/6 (New Sy.No.151/2) corresponding to T.S. No. 4. Except this, for rest of the land in Sy.No.403/6 corresponding to T.S. No. 4, there is no claim in so far as respondent No.4 is concerned. Even according to the petitioners, the total land in Sy.No.151/2 i.e. Old Sy.No.403/6 corresponding to T.S. No. 4 is Ac.5-00 out of Ac.6-02 guntas, as decided by the Collector. Where exactly the land of the petitioners is located is not known as of now. It appears, L.G.C. No. 166/96 was filed by the vendors of 4th respondent and the matter came up to this Court and was remanded for re-consideration to the Special Tribunal and it is pending at that stage. According to the petitioners, they were also parties to the said L.G.C. and their rights are yet to be decided. Probably, the petitioners may have to work out their remedies in L.G.C. No. 166/96, which is pending. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that as of today the petitioners have no fructified right to obstruct or oppose the impugned G.O. issued in favour of respondent No.4. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that any proceedings taken up under the said G.O. shall be subject to result of L.G.C. No.166/96. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-12-2009. MVB.