IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 28375 of 2007 Between: Gali Surya Nagamani W/o.Babu Rao R/o.Korangi , Tallareveu Mandal East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Revenue Department, East Godavari District 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District 3 The Revenue Divisonal officer, Kakinada East Godavari District 4 The Tahsildar, Tallarevu , Tallarevu Mandal East Godavari District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner and her husband from the land of an extent of Ac.2.35 cts in RS.Nos.46/ 2D,2G,2H,2F,2B,2E, situated at patavala village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District without following the due proceudre envisaged under law as illegal, arbitrary, etc and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon`ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: The writ petition is filed apprehending dispossession by the respondents of land in an extent of Ac.2-35 cents in R.S.Nos. 46/2D, 2G, 2H, 2C, 2F, 2B, and 2E of Patavala Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner claims that she is the owner and possessor of the property. It is alleged that the respondents, without following the due process are proceeding to dispossess her. According to the petitioner, no notice was issued on 20-4-2007 by the 4th respondent alleging illegal acquisition by the petitioner’s husband of an extent of Ac.0-35 cents each in R.S.No. 46/2G i.e., assigned land, contrary to the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 2007. According to the petitioner, no final orders had been passed. However, the respondents are out to dispossess the petitioners, is the allegation. If the respondents seek to dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law, the petitioner also has an alternative remedy of moving the civil court of competent jurisdiction for an injunctive relief. Why the petitioner has impleaded the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, District Collector, East Godavari District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District is not clear, as no allegations are made against these respondents in the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. As and when the respondents seek to dispossess the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the civil court. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 28th April, 2009. GRR