IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN WRIT PETITION No.32048 of 2010 Between: Smt.Koyyada Eshwaramma and another. … Petitioners And The Addl. Agent to Government and Project Officer, ITDA, Adilabad, Head Quarters-Utnoor, Adilabad district and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Social Welfare for R.1 & R.2. None for R.3. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in highhandedly preventing the petitioners from harvesting the paddy crop, in pursuance of interim order dated 29-10-2010 passed by respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Ch.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners claim that they are the owners of Ac.2.30 guntas of land in Survey No.84/3 of Dharmaraopet village, Kashipet Mandal, Adilabad district, by virtue of a certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. When respondent No.3 sought to interfere with the petitioners’ possession, they have filed a civil suit before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, which was returned as not maintainable on the objections raised by respondent No.3. Before the petitioners questioned the said order before the competent Court, respondent No.3 filed a suit – registered as A4/CPC/984/2010 – before respondent No.1 for perpetual injunction against the petitioners. The said suit having been entertained by respondent No.1, an order of ad interim injunction was granted on 29-10-2010. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioners have prayed for preventing the respondents from interfering with their right of harvesting the paddy crop in the said land. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived. On the strength of the interim order granted by respondent No.1, respondent No.3 is entitled to operate the injunction against the petitioners. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the order of injunction, appropriate remedy for them is to move respondent No.1 for vacation of the said interim order. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there is only an incharge officer officiating the office of respondent No.1 and that he has not been taking up the said case. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have filed an application for vacating the interim order and the said application has not been taken up for hearing. I am, therefore, of the opinion that mere absence of the regular officer cannot provide a ground for the petitioners to approach this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are, therefore, permitted to move respondent No.1 for vacating the interim order granted in favour of respondent No.3. If such an application is moved, either the regular officer or in his absence the incharge officer officiating the duty of respondent No.1, shall dispose of the same after notice to the petitioners and respondent No.3 within one month from the date of filing of the application by the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.40742 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.21-12-2010 MNR