IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25494 of 2001 Between: R.Premalatha, Hindu W/o. R.Venkatesha Reddy, R/o. D.No.417, Bandla Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Village Administrative Officer, Tummalagunta Gram Panchayat, Tirupathi Rural, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in interfering with the construction of residential building of the petitioner, undertaken in accordance with the approved plan, dated 12.06.2001 issued by Thummalagunta Gram Panchayat over 204 sq.yards of land in Survey No.15/2 of Thummalagunta Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner, she claimed that on 25.01.2001, her husband gifted her the house plot referred to above and situated in Survey No.15/2. According to the petitioner, her husband purchased the said plot under registered sale deed, dated 17.06.1996 from Sri M.Subba Rao. She stated that she got the house plan approved by Thummalagunta Gram Panchayat on 12.06.2001 and when she started digging the pits for raising construction, respondent No.3 with his staﬀ came to the site and directed the petitioner to stop construction by alleging that the house- site falls within the village poramboke. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, it is stated that in the guise of raising construction over the land in Survey No.15/2, the petitioner encroached into Survey No.15/1 classiﬁed as Cart Track Poramboke and, therefore, the subordinates of respondent No.3 prevented the petitioner from raising construction. The question whether the petitioner encroached into Survey No.15/1 or she conﬁned her construction activity to Survey No.15/2 cannot be decided in this writ petition. The petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.1 along with the supporting documents to show that she is carrying out the construction activity in Survey No.15/2, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, respondent No.1 shall consider, pass a detailed order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and communicate the same to her. If respondent No.1 ﬁnds that the area over which the petitioner commenced construction falls in Survey No.15/1, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate relief. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni