Ramesh Ranganathan, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by the petitioners in W.P.No.12347 of 2007, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Single Judge dated 13.04.2018 dismissing the Writ Petition. The appellants herein had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records, and to set aside the order and decree in C.M.A.No.11 of 2005 dated 20.04.2007 passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirming the proceedings of the Estates Officer and Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway, Secundera;bad.
(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, re that the appellant-writ petitioners and their predecessors in title claim to be in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 4876 square meters of land at Chilakalaguda, Bolakpura, Secunderabad for the last 80 years. A temple called Draupadi Temple is said to be in existence in the said property for the past several decades. When the 2nd respondent disputed the appellant-writ petitioners title and possession over the subject property, O.S.No.59 of 1967 was filed by them before the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The said Suit was dismissed on 30.10.1973. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-writ petitioners filed C.C.C.A.No.27 of 1975 before the High Court which was dismissed on 12.04.1977. Aggrieved thereby the appellant filed L.P.A.No.191 of 1977 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.08.1977.
(3.) Thereafter the appellant-writ petitioners filed O.S.No.3121 of 1982 before the 1st Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad seeking injunction. This Suit was also dismissed on 03.04.1989. Aggrieved thereby the appellant-writ petitioners filed A.S.No.127 of 1989 which was also dismissed on 29.07.1994. Questioning the said judgment, they filed S.A.No.427 of 1994 and a Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 20.03.2003, while dismissing the Second Appeal, observed that it was open to the respondents to initiate proceedings to evict the appellant-writ petitioners in accordance with law.;