THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24762 and 24764 of 2003 December 10, 2010 Between: Makula Srihari, S/o.Venkataiah And others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Kadapa And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.24762 and 24764 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: The land in S.Nos.641, 648/2, and 896/2B situated at Pedda Pasupula village of Peddamudium Mandal in Kadapa District was owned by Nadigadda Pulla Reddy. He filed declaration under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Act). The property ultimately devolved on his reversioners including on Pothireddigari Chinnapa Reddy. The petitioners in the first writ petition purchased the lands in S.Nos.641 and 648/2 from Chinnapa Reddy. The petitioner in the second writ petition purchased the land in S.No.896/2B from Chinnapa Reddy. When there is interference, they filed these two writ petitions seeking direction to respondents not to interfere with their possession. Respondents have filed counter affidavits denying the right of the vendor of the petitioners to sell the land. According to them, Pulla Reddy died issue less and his first wife Subbamma was murdered. Therefore Chinnapa Reddy or other reversioners would not get any right. Pursuant to the orders of the Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT), possession was sought to be taken. This Court heard the Counsel for petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). Both of them admit that the issue raised herein is covered by the common order dated 02.12.2010 in W.P.No.10212 and 23905 of 2003. Those writ petitions were disposed of observing as under. Therefore, though the learned counsel made submissions with regard to the succession to the property of Subbamma, which she allegedly got under gift in 1944, with reference to Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This court is not inclined to go into that question. Indeed, as observed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20326 of 2002, the question of title cannot be gone into in the writ petition. The petitioners have to agitate the matter before the appropriate common law Court by filing a suit for declaration. Further even the respondents cannot on their own decide the right of the petitioners to succeed to the property of Pulla Reddy under the gift deed and/or as adverted to in Writ Petition No.23905 of 2003 also. These are all the matters which need to be appreciated after proper evidence is let in. However, if the petitioners are in possession of the land as alleged by them, the respondents cannot dispossess them without issuing notice under Sections 10(3)(4) and (5) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. Be it also observed that if the petitioner’s possession is treated as encroachment, even then the respondents cannot high- handedly dispossess the petitioners by adopting coercive methods. Due process of law has to be followed. To that extent, this Court is willing to countenance the submission of the Counsel. As the factual background of these two cases is also similar, observing that the question of title cannot be gone into in a writ petition, these writ petitions are disposed of further observing that the petitioners cannot be dispossessed, if they are in possession, without following due process of law. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 10, 2010. YS