IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 904 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 24/06/2009 in WP NO : 6704 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V. Venkat Swamy S/o. Late V. Mallesh R/o. 5-101, Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 P.B Maru S/o Bhagwanji Maru 9-42 Maru Farms,Yapral,Secunderabad 2 Smt.Leelavathi Maru W/o. P.B Maru 9-42 Maru Farms,Yapral,Secunderabad 3 The Joint Collector II Ranga Reddy District 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Y. Chidambaram S/o. Late Bal Rajaiah R/o. H.No.18-9-86/2, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. 6 Y. Anasuya Wallabh Sonpar W/o. Late M. Sonpar R/o. H.No.18-9-86/2, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. 7 Smt. Y. Sathamma W/o. Late V. Ramchander Rao R/o. H.No.18-9-86/2, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. 8 Smt. Usha Lal W/o. Late Capt. Dushyanth Lal R/o. H.No.18-9-86/2, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri K.V.Bhanuprasad Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.904 of 2009 Oral Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in WVMP No.1740 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 6704 pf 2008, dated 24.6.2009, whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge has vacated the interim order. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the aforementioned writ petition before the learned single judge assailing the order of the Joint Collector, dated 17.6.2006 whereunder the Joint Collector rejected the claim of the appellant for occupancy right certificates. Initially, on 31.3.2008, while ordering notice before admission, a learned single Judge of this Court has granted interim order in the said writ petition directing the respondent-authorities therein, not to implement the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. By the impugned order dated 24.6.2009, the learned single Judge, while allowing the vacate petition, passed the following order: “As the primary and appellate authorities concurred in the rejection of the claim of the father of the petitioner and one V. Krishna for grant of occupancy rights certificates under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and accepted the competing claims of respondents 3 to 8 for grant of such occupancy right certificate, no purpose is served by interdicting the appellate order, by which the appeal of the father of the petitioner is dismissed. On the aforesaid analysis, the interim order dated 31.3.2008 is vacated.” Aggrieved, the appellant-writ petitioner filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under appeal. Having regard to the fact that both the primary and appellate authorities have declined to grant occupancy rights in favour of the appellant, the learned single judge was justified in vacating the interim order. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out before us that the authorities have not properly appreciated the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act and therefore, interference by this Court is warranted. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to modify the impugned order of the learned single judge and direct the parties to maintain status-quo. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above modification. The registry is directed post the writ petition itself for hearing before the learned single judge immediately after Dasara vacation. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 14th July, 2009 _________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J pnb