IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25292 of 2001 Between: Vasam Hanumaiah, S/o. Batakaiah, R/o. Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. .....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 issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioner situated in R.S.No. 91/1 Part, measuring Acres-6-00 bounded by East-Dubati line between Ramalayam lands & the Harinadh Baba Temple, lands, West - Remaining land of the Harinadh Baba Temple, North-R&B road leading t o Gollagatta from Bhadrachalam, and South-remaining land of the Harinadh Baba Temple without following any due process of law and without notice as highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the lands of the petitioner situated in R.S.No. 91/1 Part measuring Acfres.6-11 of Bhadrachalam. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.25292 OF 2001 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the six acres of land situated in RS.No.91/1 of Bhadrachalam, Khammam District as arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing Rule Nisi, by order dated 12.12.2001 granted interim order directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the land in question. Despite notice, the respondents have not filed any counter and the interim order continued in operation all through. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and having regard to the specific case of the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property in question, which remained uncontroverted in the absence of any counter-affidavit by the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 21.11.2008 gbs