IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1714 of 2009 Between: Sd. Fareed, S/o. Gulam Ali, R/o. Gollapalli Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District. 2 The Gram Panchayat, Gollapalli Village, Kondapur Manal, Medak District., rep. by its Secretary ....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the hut of the petitioner and dispossessing him from the plot of land admeasuring 121 Sq.Yds in Sy.No.179 of Gollapalli Village, Kondapalli Mandal, Medak District, without notice and without following due process of law as highly illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to redeliver the plot of land admeasuring 121 sq.yds in Sy.No.179 of Gollapalli Village, Kondapalli Mandal, Medak District to the petitioner herein and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABDUL NAJEEB KHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2009 Order: The petitioner states that he constructed a hut over a plot of land admeasuring 121 sq. yards, situated in Survey No.179 of Gollapalli village, Kondapalli Mandal, Medak District. He states that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapur, also issued ownership certificate to him in respect of the said property. The petitioner complains that the respondents demolished the hut raised by him on 27.01.2009 and are taking steps to construct a building thereon. Challenging the said action of the respondents, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. This Court would have stopped the respondents from demolishing the hut raised by the petitioner, had he approached the Court well in advance. The petitioner himself states that the hut has been demolished, even though ownership had accrued to him under the ownership certificate. Be that as it may, the Government itself has undertaken a widespread programme of constructing houses to the poor. The case of the petitioner also deserves to be considered, having regard to the certificate of ownership issued to him. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of house site under the existing scheme after verifying his eligibility. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Date: 04.02.2009 Nsr