IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No: 19763 of 2001 BETWEEN: B. Bhojaraju Chandra Mouli S/o Guru Rathnam Setty R/o Varadaiah Palem, Chittoor Dist. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Division Officer, Tirupathi. 2 The M.R.O., Varadaiahpalem, Chittoor Dist. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Varadaiahpalem Police Station, Chittoor Dist. 4 The Sarpanch, Varadaiahpalem Gram Panchyat, Varadaiahpalem, Chittoor Dist. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of his patta lands situated in Sy.No.266/1B/1 measuring 0.58 cents and Sy.No.267 measuring Ac 1.07 cents, both situated in Varadaiahpalem Village & Mandal Accounts, Chittoor Dist., as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art.300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess/interfere with the petitioner enjoyment of the said lands, except in due process of law, and with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the action of the respondents in interfering with his possession and enjoyment over his patta land in Sy.No.266/B/1 admeasuring Ac.0.58 cents and in Sy.No.267 admeasuring Ac.1.07 cents situated in Varadaiahpalem Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. It is his case that the respondents were threatening to dispossess him from the subject lands without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law. He claimed that the subject lands and other lands were his ancestral properties. Owing to the fact that the Sarpanch of Varadaiahpalem Gram Panchayat was inimical towards his family, the respondents were allegedly acting under his instigation and wanted to lay a road across his land and destroy his crops. It is his further case that he was not given any notice prior to this proposed action and that the respondents have not followed the due procedure laid down by law. 3. By order dated 27.09.2001, this Court directed maintenance of status quo existing as on that date in all respects. However, the said order was vacated by subsequent order dated 27.06.2002, duly taking note of the submissions made by respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 stated in their counter to the eﬀect that though the subject lands belong to the petitioner and his family, the metal road thereon was laid 15 years prior thereto by his father, at the time when he was the Sarpanch. However, as the petitioner’s family members had lost the election and were annoyed with the voters of the Gopalrao Colony, they had resorted to the action of destroying the metal road and the drinking water pipeline, which passed through their lands on the way to Gopalrao Colony. It is further stated that upon a complaint made by the colony people in this regard, the respondents visited the spot to verify the truth of this allegation. Thereupon, a criminal case was also booked against the petitioner in Cr.No.166 dated 10.09.2001 on the ﬁle of the Varadaiahpalem Police Station under the provisions of Sections 143, 427, 431 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The respondents speciﬁcally stated that they had not resorted to any action against the petitioner for the purpose of laying a road or destroying the standing crop. 5. In the light of the averments made in the above counter aﬃdavit, it is clear that the petitioner had no cause of action against the respondents. His apprehensions with regard to the laying of road are proved to be without foundation and on the other hand, it appears that the metal road existing in the petitioner’s land was, in fact, laid by his own father. Anyhow, these are not issues which are amenable to adjudication in a writ petition. All the more so, as the dispute of the petitioner appears to be with the residents of Gopalrao colony, who are not even parties to this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J November 12, 2008 DSK