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 MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2284 of 2006 Between: 1 Bandaru Mahalakshmamma, W/o. Sri B. Ram Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Giddaluru (V), Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 2 Bandaru Janardhan Reddy, W/o. Sri B. Ram Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Giddamvari Street, IV Ward, Giddaluru Village& Mandal, Prakasam Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Markapuram, Prakasam Dist. 3 The District Collector, Prakasam Dist Ongole. .....RESPONDENTS 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 the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent as permitted by the respondents 2 and 3 in installing polls on on the petitioner's land in an extent of 42 cents in survey No.473/2B in the Village of Giddaluru, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam Dist and proceeding to the forcibly taking possession of the land by erecting name boards on the land and taking further action for utilizing for other purposes by dispossessing the petitioners from the land without any right, title or intrerest in the land is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary and against the principles of natural jsutice and with a consequential direction to the respondent not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the above said land and in the alternative for a direction to the respondents to regularize the land in favour of the petitioners in case if it is found by considering the case of the respondents that the land belongs to the Government and the petitioners be permitted to have regularizatiosn from the Revenue or other authorities concerned, and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAJAGOPAL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.2284 of 2006 O R D E R: Heard both the counsel. It is the case of the petitioners that an extent of Ac.0.42 cents in Sy.No.473/2B of Giddaluru village is their ancestral property, and the 1st petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property for the last more than 30 years by paying land revenue to the revenue authorities from time to time. Out of Ac.0.42 cents, an extent of Ac.0.41 cents is in possession of the 1st petitioner, who constructed a thatched house therein about 40 years back and enjoying the same exercising her own rights and her name was also mutated in the panchayat records of Giddaluru Gram Panchayat and she has also been paying house tax. In the remaining land of Ac.0.01 cent, the 2nd petitioner constructed a thatched roof which is located by the side of the agricultural land belongs to the 1st petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is stated that Door No.8-19-100 was assigned to the house and they have been paying house tax from 1976-77 onwards and the said Door Number was changed as 8-17-R/31/3 in the subsequent revision. House tax was also paid for the year 2005-06. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner executed a gift deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner on 07.01.2006 and the said gift deed was registered on 09.01.2006 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Giddalur. Thus, it is stated that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the said property being their ancestral property and therefore, the revenue respondents/revenue authorities have no right in any manner to interfere with their possession and dispossess them therefrom without following due process of law. A counter has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Giddalur, denying all the allegations made in the writ affidavit and stated that the said land in Sy.No.473/2B is classified as Kunta Poramboke (tankbed) in the revenue records and the petitioners are not in possession of the said land and all the averments made by them in the writ affidavit with regard to their possession and installing polls on the said land by the respondents and proceeding to forcibly take possession of the land by erecting name boards etc. are all incorrect. It is further stated that there was some encroachment by some others viz. an extent of Ac.0.05 cents by Ex-Naxalite Rajagopal @ Kiran, an extent of Ac.025 cents by Rama Krishna Matam Dyan Mandir and in Ac.0.01 cents permanent structures were raised by the adjacent land owner, but the petitioners were never in possession or encroached upon any extent of the said land. It is further stated that the petitioners were never in possession of the said land and therefore, the question of constructing a house and assessing the same for the property tax does not arise. It is stated that the said land is the Government land. It is further stated that the house tax and water tax does not co-relate to the said property and there is no entry in the revenue records with regard to encroachment or possession of the petitioners. Thus, there is serious dispute with regard to possession of the said property and also payment of house tax to the Gram Panchayat with respect to the Kunta Poramboke (tankbed). It is stated that to safeguard the Government property, the then Mandal Revenue Officer erected fencing around the said land. But under the guise of the interim orders passed by this Court, the petitioners made an attempt to encroach upon the said land. But the said attempt of the petitioners was prevented by the revenue authorities. It is stated that the said land was not in possession of the petitioners and therefore, question of restoration of the possession of the said land in favour of the petitioners does not arise. A perusal of the counter averments and denials by the revenue authorities, I am of the opinion that the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the present writ petition. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have not filed any documents to establish that they have acquired the said land through their ancestors. I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to establish their right and title over the property in question in appropriate proceedings, either before the Civil Court or before the Revenue Authorities. In the circumstances, status quo, with regard to possession of the land, obtaining as on today, shall be maintained, for a period of three months. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 21.11.2008 Dsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam Dist. 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Markapuram, Prakasam Dist. 3 The District Collector, Prakasam Dist Ongole. 4.2CCs to 5.2CD copies