Ac.0-30 guntas respectively from one Dr. Prema Menon and Smt. Latha Ghosh and since then it has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in question. It has filed an application on 18-07-1996 to grant permission for construction of a Church and School building in the land in question. Sixth respondent – District Collector on consideration of the recommendations made by first respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer and the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District accorded necessary permission vide proceedings dated 29-04-1997 for construction of a Church and School Building subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as required under norms of HUDA and Municipality. In the light of the said permission, it got a compound wall constructed on three sides before commencement of the construction of the Church and School building. While so, on 25-02-1998 first respondent visited the site and arbitrarily got demolished the compound wall. Assailing the said action, it has filed W.P.No.5527 of 1998 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 03-03-1998 with a direction to first respondent not to interfere or meddle with the possession and enjoyment of the land in question, without recourse to law land without initiating necessary proceedings under any enabling statute and without notice to petitioner. In the said order it was also observed that the question of restoration of wall by first respondent cannot be adjudicated under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but, however, given liberty to approach the competent Civil Court. Even thereafter, first respondent in collusion with other respondents started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land in question. Be that as it may, it has applied for permission for construction of compound wall in the land in question and the same was refused by second respondent vide proceedings bearing No.G2/433/97, dated 15-06-1998 on the ground that the land in question is considered as water beds as per Zonal Development Plan. In the said proceedings, it is stated that sixth respondent passed an order vide
