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. 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 respondent. 12. 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 respondent. 12. In the said written instructions it was stated that the 8th respondent had lodged a complaint with the 6th respondent on 14.07.2020 stating that in spite of a status quo order granted by the Supreme Court in SLP.No.21988 of 2019, some people, taking advantage of COVID-19 lockdown and the Courts being closed, are violating the said status quo order by trespassing into the site in survey No.129/52 situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills and were trying to level the land with proclainers and raising compound wall, and requested the police to take necessary to stop the alleged illegal activities of the trespassers. 13. It was informed to the learned Single Judge that along with the said complaint, 8th respondent also enclosed copy of an order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP.No.21988 of 2019 and a Government Memo No.92/PrlSecy/ MA&UD / Peshi/2019 dt.10.07.2019 addressed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration, Urban Development Department, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad, to the Commissioner, GHMC; and that on receipt of the complaint, the 6th respondent-police registered a case vide Crime No.441 of 2020 under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, against one M.L.Agarwal and his associates. 14. It was informed to the learned Single Judge that because of the status quo order granted by the Supreme Court, the police registered the above crime and stopped the construction in the subject land because it appears to be in violation of the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court, which the parties were required to maintain. The stand of the 8th respondent before the single Judge 15. The counsel for the 8th respondent submitted before the learned Single Judge that the appellants were making their claim to a non-existent parcel of land as being in survey No.129/68 paiki by creating fictitious documents and are seeking to make illegal construction thereon in violation of the status quo order of the Supreme Court. 16. The counsel for the 8th respondent submitted before the learned Single Judge that the appellants were making their claim to a non-existent parcel of land as being in survey No.129/68 paiki by creating fictitious documents and are seeking to make illegal construction thereon in violation of the status quo order of the Supreme Court. 16. He also submitted that when the appellants sought to obtain building construction permission, the same was rejected by the GHMC by noting that the proposed site for which the appellants had applied for sanction of building permission is located in a different location and is not abutting by Road No.12 as shown in the plan. He stated that in view of the status quo order of the Supreme Court and its violation by the appellants, the 8th respondent approached the police and gave a complaint. The order dt.29.7.2020 of the learned Single Judge 17. On the basis of these submissions, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition No.11155 of 2020 on 29.07.2020 directing the respondents 1 to 7-police authorities not to interfere with the civil disputes between the appellants and unofficial respondents. 18. He held that independent of any action which may be initiated by the GHMC for the alleged violation of the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the police cannot be pressed into service to aid the 8th respondent, who is complaining of such act. 19. However, the learned Single Judge in para 7 made the following observations: "7. Having regard to the submissions made as above and considering the material placed before this Court, it is an admitted fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed maintaining status quo with regard to the land in Sy.No.129/68. If, either of the parties intend to take any further activity, the parties are required to seek clarification from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and cannot act in violation thereof. Similarly, the respondent police also cannot seek to interfere into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the 8th respondent by seeking to interpret the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly, when the dispute relates to identification of land....... Similarly, the respondent police also cannot seek to interfere into the civil disputes between the petitioner and the 8th respondent by seeking to interpret the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly, when the dispute relates to identification of land....... Thus leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies by approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction complaining of violation of status quo order or seeking clarification as to the exclusion of the land from the purview of the status quo order to enable to proceed with the construction,.... the respondent police shall not interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the un-official respondent in the Writ petition." ( emphasis supplied) The instant Writ Appeal 20. This Writ Appeal by the appellants is directed only against the observations made in above extracted paragraph 7 in the above order of the learned Single Judge. 21. Thus the scope of the Writ appeal is very limited. 22. In order to deal with the contentions made by the appellants in regard to the above observations, it is necessary to state certain other facts. The background facts 23. The 8th respondent and his daughter by name Anushri had obtained an Agreement of Sale dt.07.11.1996 from Mehdi Ali and 33 others represented by one K.Arvind Reddy (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Principals of K.Arvind Reddy" ) in respect of land admeasuring 16916 sq. yards in survey No.129/52(old) , revision survey No.327 forming part of TS.No.s 11 and 12/2, Ward No.10, Block H situated at Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad District. 24. Both parties filed a Memorandum of Compromise on 10.09.2004 under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad. 25. A Compromise/Award under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was passed on 27.11.2004 before the Lok Adalat of the City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad. PLC.NO.81 of 2007 26. Subsequently in 2007, the 8th respondent and his daughter/plaintiffs in OS.No.278 of 2004 filed a pre-litigation case PLC.NO.81 of 2007 ostensibly to record payments made by themselves to the principals of Sri K.Arvind Reddy, and to record an assurance given by the said persons regarding execution of registered sale deeds as per Award. 27. PLC.NO.81 of 2007 26. Subsequently in 2007, the 8th respondent and his daughter/plaintiffs in OS.No.278 of 2004 filed a pre-litigation case PLC.NO.81 of 2007 ostensibly to record payments made by themselves to the principals of Sri K.Arvind Reddy, and to record an assurance given by the said persons regarding execution of registered sale deeds as per Award. 27. On 15.05.2007, an Award was passed in PLC.No.81 of 2007 by the Lok Adalat Bench of City Civil Court Legal Services Authority regarding receipt of balance sale consideration from the 8th respondent and his daughter by the Principals of K.Arvind Reddy and that those persons will execute registered sale deeds in favour of the 8th respondent and his daughter or their nominees as and when the 8th respondent and his daughter demand it. EP.No.1529 of 2018 on 28.11.2018 in PLC.No.81 of 2007 in OS.No.278 of 2004 28. Alleging that the registered sale deed was not being executed in their favour by the Principals of K.Arvind Reddy, the 8th respondent and his daughter filed EP.No.1529 of 2018 on 28.11.2018 in PLC.No.81 of 2007 in OS.No.278 of 2004 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and they sought a direction to the Court Bailiff to handover the peaceful possession of the land claimed by them in survey No.129/52 (old) in Shaikpet Village by conducting panchanama. EA.No.500 of 2019 29. Sri K.Arvind Reddy then filed EA.No.500 of 2019 in EP.No.1529 of 2018 under Section 22(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 to dismiss the said EP as not maintainable. 30. It was the specific contention in the EA that he is not admitting to the receipt of the balance sale consideration as is alleged by the 8th respondent and his daughter /plaintiffs in OS.No.278 of 2004 though the Award dt.15.05.2007 in PLC.No.81 of 2007 says so. He also stated that the Lok Adalat Bench of the City Civil Court Legal Services Authority did not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter in view of Section 22(1) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 which mandated that a Permanent Lok Adalat would not have the jurisdiction in a matter wherein the value of the property exceeds Rs.10 lakhs at the time of passing of the Award. He also specifically contended that he is not the owner of the suit schedule property; that a notice in the EP was received by him from the Court in his individual name and not as a GPA holder of his principals, who are the owners of the property, which was agreed to be sold to the 8th respondent and his daughter under the agreement of sale dt.7.11.1996. 31. The 8th respondent and his co-plaintiff opposed this application and contended that entire consideration was received by Mr.K.Arvind Reddy, the GPA Holder and there is no necessity to give any notice to his principals. They also denied that the Lok Adalat Award dt.15.05.2007 in PLC No.81 of 2007 is invalid. Order dt.10.4.2019 in EA.No.500 of 2019 32. On 10.04.2019, EA.No.500 of 2019 was dismissed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 33. The said Court held that the Award dt.27.11.2004 passed by the Lok Adalat Bench of the City Civil Court Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad was signed by both side counsels as well as the parties and also the Presiding Officer and Members of the Lok Adalat; in PLC.No.81 of 2007 also all the parties had appeared and it was recorded that Rs.1.95 Crores of balance consideration was received by Mr.K.Arvind Reddy on behalf of his Principals; that K.Arvind Reddy had assured that the latter would execute a registered sale deed as and when demanded by the 8th respondent and his co-plaintiff in OS.No.278 of 2004; even the Award dt.15.05.2007 in PLC.No.81 of 2007 was signed by the parties, their advocates, Presiding Officer as well as the Members of the Lok Adalat Bench; and only to avoid execution of the Sale Deed after receiving the entire sale consideration, Sri K.Arvind Reddy and his Principals have taken this plea. CRP.No.1119 of 2019 34. This order passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 10.04.2019 in EA.No.500 of 2019 was challenged by Sri K.Arvind Reddy in CRP.No.1119 of 2019. 35. This Court allowed the CRP on 20.08.2019. 36. CRP.No.1119 of 2019 34. This order passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 10.04.2019 in EA.No.500 of 2019 was challenged by Sri K.Arvind Reddy in CRP.No.1119 of 2019. 35. This Court allowed the CRP on 20.08.2019. 36. It took the view that there was adjudication by the Special Court constituted under AP Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 1982 on 28.04.2006 in LGC.No. 29 of 1992 at the instance of Sri Sainagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited in respect of Axc.8.18 gts in Sy.No.129/52 correlated to part of TS.No.11, Block H, Ward No.10 of Shaikpet Village and LGC No. 15 of 1996 at the instance of the State Government in regard to Ac.16.09 gts in TS No.1/P,4/P,11/P and 12/P, block H, Ward No.10, correlated to Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet village; some of the vendors of the 8th respondent were parties to the said LGCs; and that in the judgment rendered by the said Special Court it was held that the land which was subject matter of those LGCs, though claimed to be in survey No.129/52 of Shaikpet Village by the plaintiffs in the LGC, was in fact located in survey No.129/68 Paiki and that it belong to M/s Kaushik Cooperative Housing Society; that the said Society had proved title, possession and enjoyment of the said property ; and State Government and the Sri Sainagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited have no claim thereon. 37. In the said case, the three of the persons, who gave GPA to Sri K.Arvind Reddy were parties and they were held not entitled to any relief. Even the plaintiffs in the LGCs were denied relief. 38. The said judgment of the Special Court was questioned by some of the principals of Mr.K.Arvind Reddy in WP.No.s 25734 of 2006, 1706 of 2007, 25636 of 2006 and 1673 of 2007, and also by the State of AP in WP.No.21130 of 2006 and by Sri Sai Nagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited in WP.No.9931 of 2006. 39. All these Writ Petitions were dismissed on 01.05.2007. The important order dt.11.4.2017 in Civil Appeals No.5113, 5116 of 2017, 5118-5119 of 2017 and 5120 of 2017 40. Thereafter, Civil Appeals No.5113, 5116 of 2017, 5118- 5119 of 2017 and 5120 of 2017 etc were filed in the Supreme Court against the order passed on 01.05.2017 in the above writ petitions. 41. The important order dt.11.4.2017 in Civil Appeals No.5113, 5116 of 2017, 5118-5119 of 2017 and 5120 of 2017 40. Thereafter, Civil Appeals No.5113, 5116 of 2017, 5118- 5119 of 2017 and 5120 of 2017 etc were filed in the Supreme Court against the order passed on 01.05.2017 in the above writ petitions. 41. All these appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11.04.2007 by a Common Order. 42. The Supreme Court held: "9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsels. Learned counsel for appellant society would argue that the main issue in the present matter is not an inter-se title dispute as none of the other parties are claiming title over Sy.No.129/68 paiki but are only disputing the identity of the suit land. It was further argued that identity of the suit property has been settled to be in Sy.No.129/68 paiki in more than one legal proceeding, few of which have attained finality. 19. In our considered opinion, matter in issue in the pending suit before the learned Special Court in LGC No.44/2000 and previous decided suits is not merely identical but the very same. Other ingredients of the principle of res judicata are also fulfilled. Moreover, once the identity of the property and the title thereof is finally adjudicated in CCCA No.14/1972, holding that the land is situated in Sy.No.129/68 paiki, it operates as res judicata. 20. Judged in this background and the principle set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that both the Special Court and the High Court have committed error in not appreciating the fact that orders, judgments and decrees passed in previously decided land grabbing cases have attained finality, wherein it was reiterated many a time that the appellant Society i.e., M/S Kaushik Coop. Building Society is the owner of the suit property which is comprised of Sy.No.129/68 and not in Sy.No.129/51 or 129/52 ( which has been renumbered as 327). Therefore the question before us is thus answered in the negative ." (emphasis supplied) The effect of the decision of the Supreme Court on the present case 43. Building Society is the owner of the suit property which is comprised of Sy.No.129/68 and not in Sy.No.129/51 or 129/52 ( which has been renumbered as 327). Therefore the question before us is thus answered in the negative ." (emphasis supplied) The effect of the decision of the Supreme Court on the present case 43. Thus the Supreme Court in the above decision has held that in CCCA No.14/1972 itself it had been adjudicated that though the land is alleged to be in Sy.No.129/52, it is actually located in Sy.No.129/68 paiki; that this was also the view in LGC No.29 of 1992 and LGC No.15 of 1996; and that the said view was correct. 44. To all these decisions, including Civil Appeal No.5113 of 2017 and batch dt.11.4.2017, some of the principals of K.Arvind Reddy are parties, and so the said decisions bind them. Consequently, they also bind the 8th respondent and his daughter who claim through them under the agreement of Sale dt.7.11.1996. 45. Even otherwise, as per Section 8(6) of the A.P.Land Grabbing Prohibition Act,1982 "every judgment of the Special Court with regard to the determination of title and ownership to, or lawful possession of, any land grabbed shall be binding on all persons having interest in such land" i.e., they will bind not just parties to them but everyone who claims interest in the land. 46. So the 8th respondent herein and his daughter are also bound by the order dt.11.4.2017 in Civil Appeal No.5113 of 2017 and batch. Order dt.20.8.2019 in CRP.No.1119 of 2019 47. Following the same, this Court therefore held in its order dt.20.08.2019 in CRP.No.1119 of 2019 that the principals of Sri K.Arvind Reddy had lost their claim to the property claimed by them in LGC.No.29/92 and LGC No.15/1996 and had suffered a finding that the land claimed by them is not in survey No.129/52, but it was in fact located in survey No.129/68 Paiki and that it belonged not to them but to M/s Kaushik Cooperative Housing Society and the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on 11.04.2017 in Civil Appeal No.s 5113 of 2017 and Batch binds them. 48. 48. Consequently, this Court held in CRP No.1119 of 2019 that in view of the said finding of the Supreme Court, there cannot be any execution in E.P.No.1529 of 2018 in PLC No.81 of 2007 in O.S.No.278 of 2004 of the registered sale deeds by the principals of Mr.K.Arvind Reddy through him in favour of the 8th respondent and his daughter/plaintiffs in OS.No.278 of 2004 and that the Court below should have therefore allowed EA.No.500 of 2019 and dismissed the EP. 49. This court allowed the CRP No.1119 of 2019 on 20.8.2019. Order dt.29.8.2019 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.21988 of 2019. 50. Against the order passed on 29.08.2019 in CRP.No.1119 of 2019, the 8th respondent went to Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (C) No.21988 of 2019. 51. On 20.09.2019, the following order was passed by the Supreme Court: " ... According to Mr.K.V.Vishwanathan, learned senior Counsel, the judgment of this Court recognized M/s Kaushik Co.op Building Society to be the owner of sy.No.129/68 and not of sy.No.129/51 or 129/52. In his submission, the issue of ownership qua Survey No.129/52 had to be assessed independently. Issue notice, returnable on 25.11.2019. Pending further consideration, status quo as on date shall be maintained by the parties." 52. It is this status quo order, which the 8th respondent was seeking to use against the appellants in this Writ Appeal. Consideration by the Court 53. A reading of the above order of the Supreme Court indicates that 8th respondent himself admitted through his counsel that in the order dt.11.04.2017 in Civil Appeal No.5113 of 2017 that land in survey No.129/68 Paiki belongs to M/s Kaushik Cooperative Housing Society, but sought to contend that the said Society did not own land in survey No.129/51 or 129/52 and that the issue of ownership regarding survey No.129/52 had to be assessed independently. 54. It is in this context that the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court requires to be interpreted. 55. In our considered opinion, the said status quo order granted by the Supreme Court can only be said to relate to land in survey No.129/52 and not to land in survey No.129/68 paiki. 54. It is in this context that the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court requires to be interpreted. 55. In our considered opinion, the said status quo order granted by the Supreme Court can only be said to relate to land in survey No.129/52 and not to land in survey No.129/68 paiki. This is because, the Kaushik Cooperative Society whose title was accepted by the 8th respondent to land in Sy.No.129/68 paiki was not a party in the Special Leave Petition (C) No.21988 of 2019 filed by the 8th respondent and the Supreme Court cannot be understood to have intended to pass any adverse order against the said society or the land in Sy.No.129/68 paiki owned by it. 56. That apart, it is important to note that in its Common Order dt.11.04.2017 in Civil Appeal No.5113 of 2017 and Batch, the Supreme Court had confirmed the findings of the High Court in the Writ Petitions 25734 of 2006 and batch in it's common order dt.1.5.2007 that the land claimed by the principals of Sri K.Arvind Reddy in survey No.129/52 was in fact not in the said survey number but it was located in survey No.129/68 Paiki. 57. Therefore, it is clear that the Supreme Court accepted not only the existence of survey No.129/68 Paiki, but also the fact that the land claimed by the principals of Sri K.Arvind Reddy was not in survey No.129/52 but it was in 129/68 Paiki. 58. Strangely, a counter affidavit is filed in this Writ Appeal by the 8th respondent that survey No.129/68 Paiki is not in existence and in support thereof a Report of the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad said to have been given on 31.01.2019 to the affect that there is no survey No.129/68 Paiki in Shaikpet Village, is filed. 59. The plea in the counter affidavit runs contrary to the orders passed in the CCCA No.14/1972, order dt.28.4.2006 in LGC No.29 of 1992 and LGC No.15 of 1996, order dt.1.5.2007 in W.P.no.s 25734 of 2006 and batch, and also order dt.11.4.2017 in Civil Appeal No.s 51113 of 2017 and batch. Such a plea practically amounts to ignoring the findings therein and re-agitating the issue of location of land claimed by 8th respondent and his predecessors and cannot be countenanced. 60. Such a plea practically amounts to ignoring the findings therein and re-agitating the issue of location of land claimed by 8th respondent and his predecessors and cannot be countenanced. 60. Further, we are unable to understand how a Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records can sit in appeal over a finding recorded by the Supreme Court on 11.04.2017 in Civil Appeal No.5113 of 2017 and Batch and also the finding recorded by this Court on 01.05.2007 in WP.No.25734 of 2006 and Batch that the land claimed by the principals of Sri K.Arvind Reddy (and the 8th respondent and his daughter through them) in survey No.129/52 was not in survey No.129/52, but it was located in survey No.129/68 Paiki. 61. We hold that it is not open to the 8th respondent to now raise a contention that survey No.129/68 Paiki is not in existence at all; and by manipulating the survey and revenue authorities at this point of time and by securing the survey report dt.31.01.2019 from the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad District, he cannot try to circumvent the orders of the High Court on 01.05.2017 in WP.No.25734 of 2006 and Batch, and the order dt.11.4.2017 of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5113 of 2017 and Batch. 62. Moreover, since the 8th respondent failed in his attempts to get a registered sale deed executed in EP.No.1529 of 2018 in PLC.No.81 of 2007 in OS.No.278 of 2004 of the Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, he has no right, title or interest in the land in survey No.129/52 or in Sy.No.129/68 Paiki. He cannot try to mislead this Court by saying that his land is in survey No.129/52 of Shaikpet Village while he claiming land in survey No.129/68 Paiki of Shaikpet Village. 63. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order does not seem to have appreciated this factual background while making the observation that "it is an admitted fact that the Supreme Court had directed maintenance of status quo with regard to land in survey No.129/68". There was in fact no such admission on behalf of the appellants. 64. 63. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order does not seem to have appreciated this factual background while making the observation that "it is an admitted fact that the Supreme Court had directed maintenance of status quo with regard to land in survey No.129/68". There was in fact no such admission on behalf of the appellants. 64. The learned single Judge seems to have not noticed that the claim of the 8th respondent is in regard to land in survey No.129/52 in the SLP(C).No.21988 of 2019 dt.20.09.2019 and not to land in survey No.129/68 Paiki and consequently, there could not have been any adverse order with regard to land in Sy.No.129/68 paiki by the Supreme Court. 65. The learned Single Judge also seems to have not noticed that the appellants in the Writ Appeal are not parties to the Special Leave application SLP(C).No.21988 of 2019 filed by 8th respondent and the said order cannot be binding on them, though it may be binding on the 8th respondent and Sri K.Arvind Reddy and his principals, through whom he is claiming. 66. So we hold that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that " if either of the parties to the Writ Petition intends to take any further activity in the subject property, they should seek further clarification from the Supreme Court and they cannot act in violation thereof .... Thus leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies by approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction complaining of violation of status quo order or seeking clarification as to the exclusion of the land from the purview of the status quo order to enable to proceed with the construction ". 67. In our opinion, the appellants cannot be compelled to seek any clarification from the Supreme Court in the said SLP(C).No.21988 of 2019 which is pending in the Supreme Court. 68. In this view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is allowed; and the observations made by the learned Single Judge in his order dt.29.07.2020 in WP.No.11155 of 2020 that the "it is an admitted fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed maintaining status quo with regard to the land in Sy.No.129/68. 68. In this view of the matter, this Writ Appeal is allowed; and the observations made by the learned Single Judge in his order dt.29.07.2020 in WP.No.11155 of 2020 that the "it is an admitted fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed maintaining status quo with regard to the land in Sy.No.129/68. If, either of the parties intend to take any further activity, the parties are required to seek clarification from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and cannot act in violation thereof" and also the observations: "Thus leaving it open to the parties to work out their remedies by approaching the competent Court of jurisdiction complaining of violation of status quo order or seeking clarification as to the exclusion of the land from the purview of the status quo order to enable to proceed with the construction," are set aside. The rest of the order of the learned single Judge is not interfered with. No order as to costs. 69. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.