THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21456 of 2006 17.1.2007 Between: Kollimarla Nagaratnamma, W/o.Nagabhushanam And others … Petitioner AND Jupudi Gram Panchayat, represented by its Sarpanch, Jupudi, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District An others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21456 of 2006 ORDER: The seven (7) petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ lands in Layout No.299/04, Block No.45, Plot Nos.6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 admeasuring 96.8 Sq.yards each situated at Jupudi Village as illegal and arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. All of them are landless poor persons. They occupied small extends of lands in 2004 in the layout and put up residential huts. They allege that on the representation of the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Ibrahimpatnam Mandal – second respondent herein; conducted a detailed enquiry and issued house site pattas on 17.7.2004. However, the third respondent started proclaiming in the Village that the petitioners would not be allowed to construct houses and that they will be evicted. The petitioners allege that without due process of law, respondents 1 and 3 have nothing to do with the lands and cannot forcibly evict the petitioners. At the stage of admission itself, a counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader also obtained instructions. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the land in survey No.45 of Jupudi village is classified as tank poramboke and known as ‘Venkanna Kunta’. Pattas were never granted to the petitioners and the pattas produced by the petitioners before this Court are false and fabricated. It is further stated that, “it is totally incorrect that a layout was sanctioned in the said land by dividing the tank land into house site plots. It is also false to say that they have raised huts over the land in their alleged plots. When the land was not divided into plots and house site pattas were not granted, the question of raising huts by the petitioners does not arise. It is relevant to mention here that except petitioners 1, 5 and 7, the other petitioners are not at all the residents of our village. The fact was supported by the report of the Revenue Inspector. It is false and incorrect to say that they have raised huts and the huts were drowned in the cyclone. No huts were raised at any point of time in the subject tank land and particularly the petitioners were never in possession of the said land and therefore, the question of threatening to evict the petitioners does not arise.” The counter affidavit was served on the petitioners’ counsel on 28.11.2006 but no reply affidavit is filed. Further, on instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the land is a tank poramboke and nobody is raised huts and that no pattas were granted. When the disputed questions of fact are raised in the petitioners’ affidavit and especially when there is strong denial by the respondents that no pattas are granted and no huts are raised, no writ as prayed for can be granted. If the petitioners are landless poor persons, they may approach the MRO for allotment of suitable house sites. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) January 17, 2007. YS