IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.2467 of 2012 BETWEEN Macha Latha and another.
... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Karimnagar District and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. CHETLURI SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The first petitioner and another had earlier approached this Court in WP.No.19489 of 2003 alleging that the revenue authorities i.e. Mandal Revenue Officer and Mandal Revenue Inspector are interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.1.34 guntas in Sy.No.797/A at Korutla town and Mandal, Karimnagar District. It was also alleged that the private party respondents therein, who were arrayed as respondents 3 to 8, were instigating respondents 1 and 2 therein to interfere. In the said writ petition, initially on 16.09.2003, this Court granted interim direction not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question and later the said writ petition was disposed of on 24.11.2003 after recording the specific stand on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 that they are no way concerned with the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 8 and that they never interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioners nor tried to dispossess them. This Court recorded the specific instructions to the extent of the allegation of the petitioners against respondents 3 to 8 and granted liberty to the petitioners to move appropriate civil Court to protect their possession.
3. While so, the present writ petition is filed by petitioners, who are mother and son and the relief sought for is against the District Collector, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tahsildar and Village Revenue Officer, who were, allegedly, instigated by respondents 5 to 10. Substantially, the same relief, as was sought in the earlier writ petition, is sought in the present writ petition also by making a further allegation that respondents 1 to 4 are supporting respondent No.5 and they have received land revenue from respondent No.5 for the years 1988 – 2009 at one time and gave her the land revenue receipt and based on that, interference was alleged.
4. The order of this Court in the earlier writ petition itself makes it clear that the official respondents were neither interfering with the possession of the petitioners nor tried to dispossess them and so far as private respondents were concerned, the petitioners were granted liberty to approach competent civil Court. In view of the said earlier order, which has become final between the same parties herein, I deem it appropriate to direct respondents 1 to 4 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners except after giving due notice and following due procedure of law, if there is any violation of law on the part of the petitioners. Petitioners are also at liberty to move the appropriate competent civil Court if their possession is interfered with by respondents 5 to 10.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 2, 2014 DSK