IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1427 OF 2009 Dt.15.12.2009 Between: Arun Kumar Kedia … Appellants and others And K.V.S.S. Sastry and others … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri B. Mahender Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: G.P. for Revenue THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1427 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal is filed against order dt.11.6.2008 in Writ Petition No.8161 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition at the admission stage by placing on record the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that respondent No.3 is taking necessary steps to implement the order of respondent No.4. There is a dispute regarding the property in dispute between the appellants on the one side and respondent No.4 on the other. By proceedings dt.25.5.2007 respondent No.3 altered the revenue record in favour of respondent No.4. On the strength of the said order, respondent No.4 granted patta in favour of respondent No.1. The appellants were unsuccessful before respondent No.2 in getting the order passed by respondent No.4 set aside. In a Writ Petition filed by respondent No.4, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the proceedings dt.25.5.2007 of respondent No.3 and that of respondent No.2. The learned Single Judge directed respondent No.3 to hold a de novo enquiry before making necessary corrections in the record of rights. Before the said order was passed by this Court, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.8161 of 2008 for enforcement of patta dt.30.10.2007 by making necessary entries in the record of rights. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on the basis of concession made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The appellants were not parties to the said Writ Petition. Therefore, they filed the present Writ Appeal with the leave of this Court. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. It is not in dispute that the rival claims of the appellants and respondent No.4, through which respondent No.1 is claiming his right, were directed to be adjudicated afresh by respondent No.3 vide order dt.22.7.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Therefore, in our view, until such time as the enquiry is completed and a final order is passed, it is not appropriate for correction of entries in pursuance of an earlier order passed by this Court on 11.6.2008. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order dt.11.6.2008 in Writ Petition No.8161 of 2008. Respondent No.3 shall hold an enquiry and pass appropriate order, as directed by the learned Single Judge in his order dt.22.7.2009, after hearing all the persons interested, including the appellants, respondent No.1 and respondent No.4. It is needless to observe that till passing an appropriate order by respondent No.3, status quo as on today shall be maintained. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal, W.A.M.P. No.2963 of 2009, filed by the appellants – petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15.12.2009 bnr