WP/9786/2006 of M/s.Esroja Constructions, Vs A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited on 31 December 2008

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing therespondents 1 to 4 to provide protection to the petitioners from the illegalactivities of 5[th] respondent.

This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 4.12.2008 directedthe respondents 1 to 4 to give protection to the petitioners as and whenthe 5[th] petitioner tries to interfere with the peaceful possession of thepetitioners. Now a vacate stay petition has been filed by therespondents seeking to vacate the said order.

It appears, the subject land was acquired by invokingproceedings under Land Acquisition Act, which was the subject matterof Writ Petition No.32806 of 1998. The said writ petition was dismissedon 27.8.1999. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Appeal No.1337 of 1999was filed. A Division Bench of this Court, while allowing the

Conclusion

said writ appeal by judgment dated 23.7.2001, set aside the impugnednotification issued under Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the saidjudgment, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure CorporationLimited (6[th] respondent herein) filed Special Leave Petition before theSupreme Court. The Supreme Court while granting leave in CivilAppeal No.304-305 of 2005, also granted interim stay. Thereafter,petitioners herein filed vacate stay petition. The said petition wasdismissed on 22.10.2007. It appears, thereafter, petitioners filedI.A.Nos.6-7/07 in Civil Appeal No.304-305/05. The said applicationswere disposed of by order dated 1.2.2008, which reads as under:

“The present applications have been filed for vacatinginterim stay granted by this Court on 10[th] January, 2005. According to the applicants, they are in possession whereasaccording to the appellant, it is in possession.

After hearing counsel for the parties, we direct thatstatus quo regarding possession as it existed on 10[th] January,2005 be maintained till disposal of the appeals.IAs are disposed of accordingly”.

Now the present writ petition is filed stating that the petitioners arein possession of the property, firstly for the reason that during thependency of Writ Petition No.32806 of 1998, they were directed toharvest the crop and secondly for the reason Writ Appeal No.1337 of1999 was allowed and all the proceedings that were taken up under theLand Acquisition Act are treated as non-est. Even otherwise,petitioners are in physical possession of the property. Since therespondents are interfering into the possession of the petitioners, theysought police protection. As noticed above, initially, this Court grantedpolice protection by order dated 4.12.2008, and now a vacate staypetition is filed seeking to vacate the said order.

The learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contended that thepetitioners have always been in possession of the property and theywere never dispossessed at any point of time. The physical possessionof the property always remained with the petitioners only. Further, in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WritAppeal, it must be deemed that the proceedings under Land AcquisitionAct are non-est in the eye of law. Even the Supreme Court, consideringthe submissions made by the petitioners, granted order directing theparties to maintain status quo as was available in the year 2005. Therefore, petitioners are in physical possession of the property and inview of the status quo orders granted by the Supreme Court, they areentitled for police protection.

Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents seriouslydisputed the possession of the petitioners and contended that sincematter is subjudice before the Supreme Court, and unless and until thematter is settled by the Supreme Court, the petitioners are not entitled forany orders from this Court. It is further contended that in view of the staygranted by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals, possession has beendelivered in favour of sixth respondent, which in turn deliveredpossession to respondents 7 to 10. Therefore, in view of the orders ofthe Supreme Court, petitioners have to maintain status quo. In view ofthe interim direction granted by this Court on 4.12.2008, the respondentsare creating a scene.

Analysis

Be that as it may, since the matter is seized up by the SupremeCourt, it may not be possible for this Court to adjudicate upon as tofactum of possession of petitioners vis-à-vis respondents. The ApexCourt granted status quo to be maintained as to the possession of theproperty as was available in the year 2005. May be, petitioners pleadedand asserted that they have been in possession of the property, but theycannot seek one direction from the Apex Court, and Police Protectionfrom this Court.

Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interimdirection granted by this Court on 4.12.2008 is liable to be vacated andaccordingly vacated. It is always open for the petitioners to approachthe Apex Court and work out their remedies as available under law,otherwise any orders passed by this Court in this writ petition or giving a finding as to the subsequent events, it amounts to circumventing thestatus quo orders passed by the Apex Court. Therefore, I am of theopinion that with the above observation the writ petition itself can bedisposed of.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Date: 17.12.2008

____________

C.V.RAMULU, J

Note:Issue C.C. in (3) days. B/o DA

W.P.No.15267 of 2008

17.12.2008