JUDGMENT

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. - Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri P.Sri Raghuram, for Sri P.Chandrasen Reddy, counsel for 8th respondent.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dt.29.07.2020 in WP.No.11155 of 2020 insofar as the said order is against the appellants herein.

The case of the appellants before the learned single Judge in the W.P.No.11155 of 2020

3. The appellants had filed WP.No.11155 of 2020 before this Court contending that the 1st appellant is the absolute owner of open land admeasuring 1933 sq. yards situated in survey No.129/68 Paiki comprising of 3 plots being part of plot No.78, admeasuring 1010 sq. yards, 673 sq. yards and 250 sq. yards, respectively, situated in survey No.129/68 paiki of Shaikpet village at Vemireddy Enclave, Road No.12, Banjara Hills , Hyderabad, having purchased the same from Mr.Mohammed Jahangir and others under three registered sale deeds bearing document No.2801/2018 dt.17.04.2018, document No.3994/2018 dt.17.04.2018 and document No.4307/2017 dt.23.06.2017. It is asserted by the 1st appellant that ever since the purchase, it has been in peaceful possession of the property.

4. The 1st appellant contended that it applied to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short 'the GHMC') for permission for construction vide application dt.14.08.2019 for land admeasuring 1010 sq. yards and made another application dt.14.08.2019 also for construction in land admeasuring 673 sq. yards and the Deputy Commissioner (Town Planning Section, CO) addressed fees intimation letters dt.16.06.2020 for both the applications asking the 1st appellant to pay the requisite fee for grant of building permission.

5. It is alleged that at that juncture, on 15.07.2020, the police from Banjara Hills Police Station, under the jurisdiction of the respondents 1 to 7, visited the subject land and instructed the appellants to stop the entire activity by giving a warning not to carry out any work in the plot and also took away a JCB and it's driver engaged by the appellants.

6. The appellants contended that police had informed the appellants that there is a dispute about the ownership and identity of land in respect of which a case is pending before the Supreme Court wherein status quo orders were granted, and so the appellants cannot carry out any activity in the land.

7. The appellants contended that they came to know that this was done at the instance of 8th respondent, who did not have any claim or right over the subject property and that he was only claiming title through one K.Arvind Reddy, who lost the litigation at several forums including this Court.

8. The appellants contended that the 8th respondent had suppressed true facts that the appellants are not parties in the Supreme Court and that the order of the Supreme Court does not bind the appellants and the 8th respondent had misled the police authorities in order to coerce the appellants for a settlement.

9. It was contended that identity and existence of survey No.129/68 paiki was disputed and litigated for several years by the 8th respondent and his predecessors in title, and this Court as well as the Supreme Court rejected their contention emphatically.

The relief sought in the Writ Petition

10. In the Writ Petition, the appellants sought a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 6 & 7 in interfering with the rights of the appellants guaranteed under the Constitution of India apart from statutory rights of the appellants in respect of the land admeasuring 1933 sq. yards in survey No.129/68 paiki of Shaikpet village and for a consequential direction to the respondents 6 & 7 not to interfere with the appellants rights in any manner.

The stand of the respondents 1-7 in the Writ Petition

11. Before the learned Single Judge, the Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed before the Court an e-mail containing the written instructions dt.24.07.2020 under the signature of the 6th resp