IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Monday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand and Nine Writ Petition No.10223 of 2002 Between: Patam Rahmad Basha, S/o. Late Nanne Khan, Aged about 52 years, Occ:Business, R/o. D.No. 4/389 & 4/389A, Sannidhi Street, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District. …Petitioner AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. and other. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.10223 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner alleges that for over five decades, his family is residing at Door No.4-389 & 4-389 A in Sannidhi Street, Srikalahasthi Mandal, Chittoor District. Initially, he constructed a thatched house and subsequently, pakka house was constructed. It is alleged that so as to provide car-parking facility for pilgrims visiting Srikalahasthi, respondents 1 and 2 proposed to acquire the land of petitioner. It is also alleged that without giving notice and without initiating action under A.P. Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respondents are trying to demolish the house and evict the petitioner. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition seeking Writ of Mandamus directing respondents not to demolish petitioner’s house. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Srikalahasthi Mandal, filed counter affidavit. It is alleged that petitioner has encroached over Road Poramboke, and that such encroachment is causing obstruction to road and hardship to pilgrims visiting Sri Kalahasthiswara Swamy Vari Temple and that no offer is being made to demolish petitioner’s house. It is also alleged that petitioner was granted house site in Survey No.317-1 of Srikalahasthi Village for the purpose of construction and that petitioner has no right to construct on encroached land. Petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit, denying counter averments. From this, it becomes clear that petitioner encroached the land and though he was allotted alternate house site in Survey No. 317-1 of Srikalahasthi Village, he did not vacate the land. The writ petition is only filed to prevent respondents to initiate necessary action by eviction of petitioner, who encroached upon Road Poramboke. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 14, 2009 Bvv