Edu Shankaraiah VsState Of Andhra Pradesh

None is present on behalf of the petitioner today.

Mr. Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, learned counsel states that he is appearing for the very same party viz., Edu Shankaraiah, in PIL No.220 of 2105 and

that he has expired. This explains the absence of the petitioner in W.P.No.17664 of 2013.

Mr. C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the respondent No.5/Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad District states that

aggrieved by the interim order dated 21.06.2013, I.A.No.1 of 2016 (WVMP.No.690 of 2016) was filed wherein, it has been explained how the

petitioner had tried to misuse the process of law by filing the captioned writ petition, after having encroached on tank property. He alludes to the

averments made in the vacate stay application wherein, it has been averred that the writ petitioner was found to have encroached upon/grabbed tank

bed land to an extent of Acs.7.16 guntas in Sy.No.62/1 in Block-E, Ward No.264, Bandlaguda. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar Mandal had

filed L.G.C.No.25 of 1988 against the petitioner alleging that he is a land grabber and praying for his eviction. Vide judgment dated 15.12.1997, the

Special Court under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act had conducted an elaborate trial and declared the petitioner as a land grabber and had

permitted the revenue authorities to take over possession of the subject land. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner had filed

W.P.No.18345 of 1998. Prior to that, he had also filed W.P.No.27803 of 1997 questioning the orders passed in respect of the compensation awarded

to the Government for illegal occupation of Government land. Vide order dated 02.07.2001 passed in W.P.No.27803 of 1997, the High Court had

confirmed the orders passed by the Special Court declaring the petitioner as a land grabber. As regards award of compensation, the said order was

set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Special Court for fresh determination. Not satisfied by the judgment dated 02.07.2001, the

petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court, registered as SLP.No.16335-16336 of 2001, which was dismissed with an observation

that if he proposed to establish his title, then he could do so by filing a civil suit.

Thereafter, the petitioner had filed O.S.No.543 of 2001 before the learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad praying inter alia

for declaration and consequential injunction relating to the subject land. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner vide judgment dated

14.07.2010. Dissatisfied by the said decision, the Government/respondents No.1 to 5 had filed an appeal, registered as A.S.No.968 of 2010, which was

allowed by the High Court vide judgment dated 01.11.2013. The operative para of the said judgment has been extracted in para 4 of the counter

affidavit filed by the respondent No.5.

It is stated by Mr. C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.5 that the petitioner did not

prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 1.11.2013 that has attained finality. After having exhausted all the remedies available to him, the petitioner

had clandestinely filed W.P.No.17664 of 2013 by taking advantage of the reduction in the water level of the tank and had tried to fill the same with

gravel and debris. Thereafter, he had started raising a dispute regarding the boundaries and the extent of the tank land, with false allegations. He

submits that the petitioner was a tank encroacher and the land in question is a valuable shikam land that forms a part of the full tank level of the tank

and under the garb of the interim order, he had has tried to change the very nature of the land by disallowing free flow of water from the catchment

area to the tank.

We may note that the present application viz., I.A.No.1 of 2016 was moved by the respondent No.5 in the year 2016 and though the petitioner was

represented throughout, he did not elect to file a reply to the said vacate stay application. Now, we are informed that the petitioner has expired. That

being the position, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present writ petition. Even otherwise, having perused the averments made by the

respondent No.5 in the vacate stay application, we see no justification for continuing the interim order, which stands vacated. I.A.No.1 of 2016 is

allowed and disposed of.

The writ petition is dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.