THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5301 of 2007 Dated:15.03.2007 Between: E.Yadamma. … Petitioner AND The District Collector and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5301 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is allegedly in occupation of land in Survey No.844/1 situated at Ramanjaneya Nagar Colony, Malkajgiri Mandal in Ranga Reddy District, where she raised a hut and allegedly staying there for the last thirty years. She also alleges that she was given a house site patta for the said land. The staff of the third respondent came to the area on 25.11.2005 and asked the petitioner and others to vacate the land. No orders are, however, served. It is also alleged that there is a threat to dispossess the petitioner, and therefore, she filed the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondents. After getting instructions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) submits that Smt.H.K.Sreemathi, W/o.Govinda Raju filed a land grabbing case, being L.G.C.No.230 of 1994, on the file of the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, and a decree was passed in her favour. He also submits that when the same was not executed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, she filed W.P.No.5982 of 2006, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.04.2006, directing the authorities to implement the orders of the Special Court. Accordingly, on 22.11.2006, the third respondent issued notice to Smt.H.K.Sreemathi, the petitioner herein and three others informing that the houses will be demolished. He would, therefore, urge that the action is being taken in accordance with the orders of this Court after giving notice to the petitioner and others. The Memo bearing No.B/2367/2003, dated 22.11.2006, issued by the third respondent to Smt.H.K.Sreemathi, a copy of which is marked to the four persons including the petitioner, has been annexed to the Writ Petition. A perusal of the same would show that the learned Assistant Government Pleader is correct. The petitioner having been in possession of the grabbed land, cannot prevent authorities from taking action in accordance with Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 1988. If the petitioner is a landless poor person, as claimed, she may approach the third respondent for assignment of alternative accommodation under any one of the housing schemes. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.03.2007 vs