RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

1. It is not often that, in an intra-Court appeal preferred against an interlocutory order, that too an order as short as the one in the present case, such an elaborate order is passed by a Division Bench in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The present case necessitates such an elaborate order, as it illustrates the damage which can be caused to a party, who is not even arrayed as a respondent before the Writ Court, by an innocuously couched interim relief which is however sought to be used to deprive him of the property in his possession.

2. This appeal is preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in I.A. No.1 of 2018 in W.P. No.11730 of 2018 dated 17.04.2018. The respondent-writ petitioner filed W.P. No.11730 of 2018 on 29.03.2018 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the State of A.P, and Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd (hereinafter called KPCL), in not extending the grace period to them, under the Right to Use Agreement, in order to complete construction of the Cement Grinding Unit, along with the Conveyor Belt, in the land ear-marked and given to the petitioner, and regulated by Krishnapatnam Port, as being illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and unconstitutional. They sought a consequential direction to the respondents therein to extend the time period. By way of interim relief, the respondent-writ petitioner sought a direction to permit them to undertake the approved project, including construction of the conveyor facility, in the ear-marked land given to them at Krishnapatnam, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

3. In the interim order under appeal, the Learned Single Judge recorded the submission of Sri D.V. Sitharama Murthy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, the Learned Standing Counsel for KPCL and the Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent herein (3rd respondent in the Writ Petition), and observed that, on 10.04.2018, an order of status-quo was passed till 15.04.2018; and the Learned Standing Counsel for KPCL had sought time to obtain instructions. The Learned Single Judge granted an interim order as prayed for considering the nature of the project, the submissions made by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, as the issues raised for consideration in the Writ Petition required detailed examination, and as he was satisfied that a prima-facie case was made out. As a result, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner was permitted to undertake approved projects, including construction of the conveyor facility in the earmarked land given to 1st respondent-writ petitioner at Krishnapatnam, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

4. In the order, passed by us in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.A.No.657 of 2018 dated 20.06.2018 (in an application filed by the appellant herein seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the interlocutory order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.11730 of 2018 dated 17.04.2018), we examined, in great detail, the appellants claim to be in possession of the subject land, and his contention that the respondent-writ petitioner had surreptitiously, and illegally, sought to dispossess him from the subject land under the protection of the interim order under appeal. It would be wholly inappropriate for us, therefore, to re-examine the rival contentions urged, by Learned Senior Counsel on either side, during the hearing of the said I.A.

5. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore informed the Principal Secretary to the Government, Roads, Transport & Buildings Department, vide letter dated 26.04.2006, that the Deputy Salt Commissioner, Chennai had been requesting that permission be accorded for acquisition of Ac.501.95 of Salt land originally belonging to the Salt Department, and an extent of Ac.2