IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.13106 of 2004 Between: Sri Kondapalli Rama Murthy and others. … Petitioners And The Station House Officer, Addateegala Police Station, East Godavari District and others. … Respondents. Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Viswanath Manoj for Sri T.S.Anand. Counsel for the respondents: None for R.1 to R.3. Sri Babji for Sri K.Venkatesh for R.4 and R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring Ac.0.46 cents in Survey No.94; Ac.8-02 cents in Survey No.96; Ac.2.48 cents in Survey No.50/2; Ac.1.90 cents in Survey No.51; Ac.1.42 cents in Survey No.49/2; Ac.3.62 cents in Survey No.97; and Ac.4.53 cents in Survey Nos.49/2, 94, 96, 97 and 50/2 of Kimmuru village, Addateegala Mandal, Eastrict, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of the above mentioned lands. When respondents 4 and 5 sought to interfere with their alleged possession, they filed O.S.Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 2002 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Mobile Court, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District, which, initially, granted interim injunction on 21-6-2002. Subsequently, the said suits were dismissed on 2-7-2004. The petitioners filed the present Writ Petition some time after dismissal of the said suits with the allegation that the respondents are seeking to dispossess them from the said lands. Along with the Writ Petition, the petitioners filed a copy of final order dated 23-6- 2004 in Writ Petition No.10267 of 2004. That Writ Petition was filed by respondents 4 and 5 herein against respondents 1 to 3 herein alleging that the said respondents were interfering with their possession of land admeasuring Ac.18-69 cents. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the possession of the said land of respondents 4 and 5 giving liberty to them to initiate appropriate proceedings if respondents 4 and 5 were found to be in possession of the properties in violation of any statutory provision. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not impleaded in the said Writ Petition. The fact that the petitioners have filed the said order in that Writ Petition shows that they were very much aware of passing of the said order. If the petitioners felt aggrieved by the said order, they should have filed a Writ Appeal with the leave of this Court. However, no such appeal has been filed and order dated 23-6- 2004 is still in operation. On the petitioners’ own showing, they have lost the suits. At the hearing, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the petitioners have filed A.S.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2004 against the judgment and decrees dismissing their suits; that no interim orders have been obtained by the petitioners in the pending appeals; and that, therefore, no restraint order can be passed in this Writ Petition against respondents 4 and 5. In my opinion, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners lies in seeking necessary relief in the pending appeals. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ----------------------------- ------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:11-2-2010 MNR