IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10629 of 2005 Between: Shaik Mastan Saheb, S/o. Shaik Mera Saheb, D.No.11-4-148/1, T.T.D., Kalayana Mandapam, Raja Garden, Guntur- 1. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The District Colletor, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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, order, or direction, more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in taking any further steps for grant of House-site Patta in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of Rc.No.2037/93 dt. 8-1993, on the file of the 1st respondent as bad in law and violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently allow the petitioners to enjoy his property admeasuring 31 sq.yds, in Door .No.11-4-148/1, T.T.D., Kalyan Mandapam, Raja Garden, Guntur-I (T.S.No.1208 - Ward No.8) (Old Ward No.5), Block No.7 of Guntur Mandal), without any hindrance whatsoever, in the Interest of Justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SUDHAKAR REDDY & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: In substance, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him house-site patta in respect of an extent of 31 sq.yards bearing Door No.11-4-148/1, TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Raja’s Garden, Guntur-I. In para (3) of the writ petition, the petitioner states that the 1st respondent-the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur in proceedings dated 20.6.1991, had “illegally” issued a ‘D’ Form patta to Sri Tunuguntla Chandrasekhara Rao and T. Yugandhar in an extent of 52 and 1/9th sq.yards, in which extent the extent of 31 sq.yards occupied by the petitioner and in his possession is also comprised. Petitioner states to have filed an appeal against the grant of ‘D’ Form patta in favour of the abovementioned persons. The affidavit is however silent as to which authority the appeal was preferred. Earlier, the petitioner filed WPMP No.22300 of 2005 seeking impleadment of T. Chandrasekhara Rao and Yugandhar as respondents in the writ petition. This application was however dismissed for default by the order of this Court dated 18.4.2008. In the context of the petitioner’s own pleadings in para (3), T. Chandrasekhara Rao and Yugandhar are necessary and proper parties to this lis as the petitioner seeks a direction to the official respondents for grant of a patta in his favour, a relief which would be adverse to the interests of T. Chandrasekhara Rao and Yugandhar, in view of the admitted position that pattas were granted to them. Another fact which requires to be noticed is that the petitioner does not either plead or demonstrate the legal basis for his claim of an obligation on the part of the official respondents to grant him a patta of Government land, merely on account of his assertion of long illegal occupation of such property. No legal instrument is brought to the notice of this Court, whereunder extended encroachment of Government land constitutes a legal right for either regularization of such encroachment or for grant of a patta by the State. The petitioner also projects a grievance in the writ petition that the official respondents are illegally trying to interfere with his possession. In the context of the vague pleadings in the writ petition, no specific relief could be granted. The petitioner is also not entitled to the relief claimed in view of his failure to have impleaded T. Chandrasekhara Rao and Yugandhar, the two individuals in whose favour even according to the petitioner, pattas were granted of the same property. However, if the petitioner is in long occupation of the property, the respondents would have to evict him only by following the due procedure of law. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 23.4.2008 cvm