HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.16993 of 2006 Date: June 30, 2014 Between:
1. A. Sarojini Devi & 3 others.
… Petitioners And
1. The Commissioner, Serilingampally Municipality, Serilingampally, R.R. District & another.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.16993 of 2006 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and none appeared for the respondents.
2. The petitioners state that the first petitioner and her son jointly purchased the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas out of the land an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey No.12-part of Khanammet Village, Serilingampalli Revenue Mandal, R.R. District under registered sale deed dated 24.09.1996 from B. Venkata Rao and B. Hanumantha Rao. The remaining land an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas out of the land an extent of Ac.1.00 was purchased by petitioners 3 and 4 and all the petitioners have been in peaceful possession of the said land. The said land was claimed by the Endowments Department and the application of the petitioners for compromise/regularization under Section 89(2) of the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987, is pending before the Commissioner, Endowments, Hyderabad.
3. While so, one A. Surender Rao along with five others entered into their land on 14.09.2003 claiming that it is their property and in those circumstances the petitioners filed O.S.No.821 of 2004 and O.S. No.841 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunction against the said persons. Again, in the month of May 2006 on 12.05.2006 some unknown persons came to the land and demolished a part of the compound wall on southern side. On 13.05.2006 one Muralidhar Reddy and his two sons tried to enter into the land and a police complaint was lodged on 15.05.2006 with the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad. In those circumstances, the petitioners filed O.S.Nos.1223 and 1224 of 2006 for permanent injunction before II Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District. When the suits were pending, on 17.07.2006 the 2nd respondent came to the land of the petitioners and tried to demolish the compound wall and the same was resisted by the petitioners stating that the compound wall was existing even before the date of purchase and the southern side 10 feet wall was reconstructed when the said Muralidhar Reddy tried to enter and demolish and accordingly requested the respondents not to interfere or demolish the existing structures. In spite of the same, it appears that the 2nd respondent came to the spot and demolished the compound wall at the instance of the said Muralidhar Reddy.
4. It appears from the above facts that certain civil disputes are pending between the parties and the petitioners are trying to secure their possession by seeking intervention of the respondents. If the petitioners are threatened with dispossession at the instance of private parties, they can take appropriate proceedings in the pending suits between the petitioners and the third parties. No relief can be granted in the present writ petition.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: June 30, 2014 BSB
7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16993 of 2006 Date: June 30, 2014 BSB