P. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to preserve the disputed property bearing No. 10-2-91/87, road No. 3, West Marredpally, secunderabad as per the proceedings of the first respondent in M. C. No. B/60/1989, dated 12-6-1995. The petitioner also prays for issuance of appropriate directions to initiate action against the persons responsible for changing the nature of the property.

( 2 ) THERE is any amount of dispute between the parties in respect of the property aring No. 10-2-91/87, Road No. 3, West marredpally, Secunderabad (for short the said property ). The petitioner and respondents 6,7 and 8 exclusively claim the proprietary rights over the said property. Even according to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the said property belongs to one late smt. P. Anjanamma, widow of late Guru swamy Naidu. The said Anjanamma had five sons and two daughters. The petitioner is the son of the eldest daughter-late smt. Lalitha w/o. late K. Rama Krishna. The said Anjanamma is alleged to have executed a Will in favour of her children in the year 1978 and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally, secunderabad vide document No. 580/1978. As per the said Will, the daughters and sons are entitled to enjoy 1/7th share in the rent and income of the said house and her eldest son P. Om Rao was appointed as an executor of the will deed. Anjanamma died on 4-1-1980.

( 3 ) CERTAIN disputes had arisen between the two sets of parties. One set represented by P. Om Rao and another set represented by smt. P. Urmila, w/o. T. K. Kondandaram. Each one of them claims exclusive proprietary rights in the said property.

( 4 ) THE fact remains that the Inspector of police, Marredpally, Secunderabad submitted a report before the first respondent in M. C. No. B/16/1989. The first respondent by an order dated 12-6-1995 passed an order in purported exercise of the power under section 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short the Code ) authorising the second respondent-Mandal Revenue officer to attach the said property by taking and keeping possession thereof, and to hold the same under attachment until the decree or order of a competent Court determining the rights of the parties or the claim to possession is obtained. The said order had been passed by the first respondent on being satisfied that a dispute likely to include a breach of peace existed between the parties concerning the said property.

( 5 ) THE said order, admittedly, is in operation even as on to-day. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the said order, the house was demolished and some constructions were going on the said property. He immediately lodged a complaint with the third respondent on 31-7-2001. No action was taken and the constructions were not stopped.

( 6 ) IT is contended that none of the parties are entitled to demolish the existing structure and make any construction while the property continues to be under the warrant of attachment issued by the first respondent- executive Magistrate. That is the simple case of the petitioner.

( 7 ) RESPONDENTS 6 and 7 assert their exclusive rights over the said property. The claim of exclusive title is based on the proceedings dated 16-10-1999 on the file of the Chief Commissioner, Land administration according permission for mutation and conversion of leasehold rights of the property into free hold in their favour on full payment of Rs. 59,250. 00 towards conversion charges. It is asserted that such an order had been passed by the commissioner, Land Administration pursuant to the policy formulated by the government vide G. O. Ms. No. 698, dated 7- 12-1995 for conversion of leasehold rights into free hold. The Estate Officer executed a conveyance deed in favour of respondents 6 and 7 and the same is registere

Click Here to Read the rest of this document