THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18906 of 2008 Date:12.07.2011 Between: Vasireddy Nagesh Babu ..... Petitioner AND The Commanding Officer, Secunderabad and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao Counsel for Respondents: Ms.A.V.Vijaya Kumari for Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, Assistant Solicitor General The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s possession of plot No.60 in survey No.449/2 situated at Devar Yamzal Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the property from its purported owners – Sri Dasari Ramachandra Reddy and others under a registered sale deed dated 05.01.1994 and that the respondents have been unduly interfering with his possession. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is inter alia stated that this property along with larger extents were acquired for the Air Force purpose between 1958 and 1965 and that the original owner appeared to have fraudulently transferred the property in favour of third parties in 1984-85 and the petitioner, in turn, eventually purchased the same in the year 1994. Ms.A.V.Vijaya Kumari, learned counsel representing the learned Assistant Solicitor General, submitted that Sri Dasari Ramachandra Reddy and two others, vendors of the petitioner, filed O.S.No.138 of 2005 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession of the property and that the said suit was dismissed on 19.11.2009 by giving categorical findings that the property was acquired from the original pattedar long back and that eversince such acquisition, the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed this position. Therefore, the petitioner’s vendors having comprehensively failed in the litigation, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted any relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner may be left free to proceed against his vendors for fraudulently selling the property which was already acquired by the respondents. Having regard to the above request, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24619 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th July, 2011 GHN