IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that prior judgments are binding unless set aside, and jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to challenge such judgments without appropriate legal action.

ORDER :

J. Sreenivas Rao, J.

W.P.(PIL) No.74 OF 2016

The writ petition (PIL) is filed seeking the following relief :

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (a) to declare the action of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 for not protecting the land of the playground admeasuring 1537 sq. yards in Sy.No.102/2 and 102/3, Bahloolkhan Guda, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad by withdrawing CCCA No.87 of 2013 on 02.09.2013 before this High Court at Hyderabad preferred by the then A.P. housing Board against Judgment passed by XIV Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.136 of 2005 on 02.09.2013 without any valid reasons by colluding with unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9 and to initiate action against erring officials of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, (b) consequently develop the playground land admeasuring 1537 sq. yards in Sy.No.102/2 and 102/3, Bahloolkhan Guda, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, by providing all amenities to the residents of the locality, (c) and to grant such other relief …”

W.P. No. 17053 OF 2016

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in seeking to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring 1537.5 square yards in Sy.No.102/2 and 102/3 situated at B.K. Guda, Balkampet, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice contrary to Article 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction directing the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners in and over the property referred to above.”

3. The subject property involved in both the cases is one and the same and therefore, both the cases are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No.74 of 2016, Sri B. Mohan, learned Counsel, representing Sri J. Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 9 who are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.17053 of 2016, Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both cases and respondent No.5 in W.P(PIL).No.74 of 2016, Sri Ch. Jaya Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 Corporation and Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 in W.P(PIL).No.74 of 2016.

5. Brief facts of the case:

5.1 Unofficial respondent Nos.6 to 9 in W.P.(PIL) No.74 of 2016 are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.17053 of 2016 and are claiming that they are owners and possessors of open land admeasuring 2,000 square yards in Sy.Nos.102/2 and 102/3 situated at Bahlool Khan Guda, Balkampet, Sanjeevareddy Nagar, Hyderabad. It is further stated that originally one B.Kanakaiah owned the entire property in Sy.No.102. Subsequently, it was divided into parts and given sub-division numbers at the time of acquisition and their mother Shanthi Agarwal had purchased the above said property from Kanakaiah through registered sale deed vide document bearing No.30 of 1963, dated 07.01.1963 and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

5.2 It is further stated that Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter called as ‘APHB’ for short) acquired a portion of the property i.e., 17,240 square yards out of 30,855 square yards in Sy.No.102. The said portion of acquired land was assigned Sy.No.102/2 and unacquired land was given Sy.Nos.102/3 and 102/4. The land claimed by respondent Nos.6 to 9 in an extent of 1537 square yards falls in Sy.No.102/3 and the rest in Sy.No.102/2. When the APHB as well as Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and the revenue officials are trying to dispossess them, they have f