THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4001 of 2003 Dated:27.01.2011 Between: R.Shobha Rani. ...Petitioner And The District Collector, Karimnagar, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4001 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Karimnagar. She filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to deliver the possession of land admeasuring Ac.0.37 guntas and 30 square yards of land in survey No.1263 of Karimnagar to the third respondent herein. Her case is that she was in possession of land admeasuring 91 square yards in the same survey number. The second respondent issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, proposing to evict her. She submitted reply. After negotiation, the second respondent allegedly regularized the occupation on payment of Rs.7280/-. She then obtained municipal permission and constructed house bearing No.2-10-1505. It is her further case that due to subsequent events as noticed hereinafter, the first respondent is likely to deliver an extent of Ac.1.13 guntas of land including the land in her possession to the third respondent. Therefore, she filed the instant writ petition. A perusal of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition and the documents annexed thereto including the order of this Court passed earlier in the writ petitions filed by the third respondent would reveal the following background. By an order in G.O.Ms.No.1011, dated 12.03.1980, an extent of Ac.1.13 guntas in survey No.1263 of Karimnagar was allotted/assigned to the third respondent which is a Society consisting of members who migrated from Pakistan in 1979 as displaced persons. The consideration for allotment was Rs.1,000/- per gunta. One of the conditions therein was that if the land is not utilized for the purpose of construction of houses, the same can be resumed. As the land was not utilized, the second respondent issued notice dated 05.06.1986 proposing to cancel the allotment as the same was not utilized by the third respondent. This was followed by an order dated 17.07.1986 cancelling the assignment. Pursuant thereto, under panchanama dated 03.12.1993 the possession was taken by the Mandal Revenue Inspector. The petitioner’s case is that while recording panchanama the Mandal Revenue Inspector noticed that an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas 30 square yards was only vacant land and the land admeasuring 91 square yards was in possession of the petitioner besides other extents which were occupied by the road and proposed park by the Municipality. The third respondent filed two writ petitions, being W.P.No.20721 of 1993 seeking to restrain respondents therein from interfering with the possession and W.P.No.444 of 1995 seeking to restrain the respondents from alienating or allotting the land to other third parties. In both the writ petitions total extent of land in survey No.1263 allotted to them was mentioned as Ac.1.13 guntas. This Court by a common order dated 11.10.2002 disposed of the writ petitions directing respondents therein to redeliver the land in possession to the third respondent and restrain them from interfering with the construction by the members of the petitioner society. In the meanwhile, one Thakur Das filed a suit against the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring 91 square yards. She also filed O.S.No.241 of 1997 against Thakur Singh for injunction. Both the suits are pending. Alleging that the first respondent is likely to redeliver the property to the third respondent, the writ petition is filed. The writ petition was admitted on 06.03.2003. On 23.08.2010 noticing that the third respondent was not served, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner’s Counsel to take out notice to the third respondent and to produce proof of the same. It was also mentioned therein that if the notice is not taken out, the writ petition shall stand dismissed against the third respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed against the third respondent as per the Registry’s notings dated 29.10.2010. Further, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not claiming any relief against the third respondent. Therefore, the matter is heard. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not filed any counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and does not find any reason to grant the relief as prayed for reasons more than one. The petitioner was in occupation of the land admeasuring 91 square yards in survey No.1263. The same was regularized and she was given assignment by way of regularization on 13.05.1996. According to her, she obtained permission and constructed a house. There is a dispute between the petitioner and Thakur Das in the suits which are pending. Therefore, the question of title cannot be gone into here and the petitioner has to seek remedy in the civil Court. Secondly, in the writ petitions filed by the third respondent this Court directed the respondents therein to redeliver the entire extent of Ac.1.13 guntas in survey No.1263 to the third respondent. In view of this, the land which was assigned in favour of Zilla Parishad and Police Department (as noticed by this Court in earlier writ petitions) also has to be redelivered. Further, the moment this Court passed an order directing redelivery of Ac.1.13 guntas, no importance can be attached to panchanama on which reliance is placed. Thirdly, if the petitioner’s occupation is regularized by the Mandal Revenue Officer, obviously, it is only in respect of the part of land which was already allotted/assigned to the third respondent thirty years ago. Dispute between the third respondent and the petitioner, if any, with reference to the land in possession has to be resolved elsewhere and not in this writ petition. Lastly, the writ petition itself is filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to redeliver possession to the third respondent. Such a writ petition would not lie. If ultimately there is any threat to the petitioner’s possession in respect of 91 square yards of land, she has to avail separate remedies. The Writ Petition for the above reasons is devoid of any merit, and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27.01.2011 vs