THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.9518 OF 2001 O R D E R This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to resume the land of the petitioner or in any way interfere with the land which is assigned to him in F.Dis.No.2467/70 dated 11.12.1961 in Sy.No.8-1 in an extent of Acs.3-59 cents, situate at Manulalapet village, Venkatagiri Mandal of Nellore District. 2. The case of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that the then Tahsildar Venkatagiri by his order in F.Dis.No.2467/70 dated 11.12.1961 assigned an extent of Acs.3-50 cents in Sy.No.8-1 of Mannulalapet, Venkatagiri Taluq, Nellore District to his father and with his hard labour and by spending money, though the land is not cultivable, he made it cultivable and his name was also entered in the revenue records and the petitioner being his son is in possession of the land. Similarly, along with his father one Sree Paluru Jayagopal was assigned an extent of Acs.4-18 cents in F.Dis.No.2457 of 71 dated 11.12.1961 and out of the said extent, he surrendered voluntarily an extent of Ac.1-18cents to the Government to facilitate the Government to assign the lands to the landless poor persons. Subsequently, when the revenue officials tried to interfere with his possession over the remaining extent, he filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.28947/1995 and this court by order dated 21.12.19956 while allowing the writ petition, passed the following order: “Considering the facts as stated in the writ petition, this court directs the respondents not to coerce either themselves through their agents or servants etc., to make in voluntary statements of surrender for the land of the petitioner. Further the respondents are directed to allow the writ petitioner to continue in possession of the land, which is in his possession.” 3. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents without following the due process of law and at the instance of third parties are interfering with his possession, to resume the land. 4. No counter affidavit is filed, though the writ petition is of the year 2001. 5. This court while admitting the writ petitioner on 15.5.2001, granted interim stay of eviction from the land in question. 6. The case of the petitioner is that his father was assigned the land in the year 1961 and since then his father and thereafter he is in possession of the land and the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession without following the due process of law. In view of these circumstances and as no counter affidavit is filed disputing the averments made in the writ petition, the same is disposed of with the following direction: “The respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner without following the due process of law and till then the interim orders granted by this court shall continue.” 8. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS -------------------- ---- 28—04— 2009