IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 161 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/02/2008 in WP NO : 26851 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 D.S. Sambasiva Rao S/o. Rama Krishnaiah R/o. Laxmi Apartments, Flat No. G-1, Padmarao Nagar Colony, Secunderabad. 2 Smt.D. Parameswari W/o. D.S. Sambasiva Rao R/o. Laxmi Apartments, Flat No. G-1, Padmarao Nagar Colony, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. 2 The Joint Collector, R.R. District. 3 T. Ramulamma W/o. Late T. Rangaiah R/o. 1-2-81-1, Yellareddyguda, Kapra Municipality Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. 4 T. Prasad S/o. Late T. Rangaiah R/o. 1-2-81-1, Yellareddyguda, Kapra Municipality Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. 5 T. Tulsi Das S/o. Late T. Rangaiah R/o. 1-2-81-1, Yellareddyguda, Kapra Municipality Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. 6 T. Ashok S/o.Late T. Rangaiah R/o. 1-2-81-1, Yellareddyguda, Kapra Municipality Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. 7 T. Gyaneshwar S/o.Late T. Rangaiah R/o. 1-2-81-1, Yellareddyguda, Kapra Municipality Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. 8 T. Laxmi W/o. Narayana R/o. 1-2-81-1, Yellareddyguda, Kapra Municipality Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:M/SC.KODANDA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants. The order dated 4-2-2008 passed in W.P.No.26851 of 2007 has been challenged in this appeal. Upon hearing the learned Advocate and looking to the counter filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 8, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. It is pertinent to note that the landlord of the 2nd appellant has not been impleaded as a party in this appeal. Moreover, the proceedings, which are pending before this Court in W.P.No. 24328 of 2002, have not been concluded. Still the present appellants, who are petitioners in the said petition, have to succeed in the said petition by establishing their right in the land in question. Till the appellants succeed in the said petition, it cannot be said that the appellants have any right in the land in question. Learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.M.Deshai v. Roshan Kumar[1] so as to make out a case that the appellants are aggrieved parties and they have a right to file the petition. Looking to the fact that still their rights have to be established in W.P.No.24328 of 2002, which is pending in this Court, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the appellants have any right and, therefore, we are not in agreement with the said submission of the learned Advocate for the appellants. In view of the said fact, the Judgment would not render any assistance to the appellants. For the aforestated reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 2nd July, 2008. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J GRR [1] AIR 1976 SC 578