IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27107 of 2007 Between: C. Yellaji Rao, S/o. Appanna, presently living by cultivation, R/o.MIG-I/21, Sagarnagar, Visakhapatnam. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, Rural Mandal, ...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 Writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land without any notice with reference to the petitioner's exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Same in Sy.No.355/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents situated at Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and District as wholly arbitrary illegal. without jurisdiction and void; and consequently, direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the lands in Sy. No. 355/1 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents, situated at madhurawadha, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and District. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Eswaraiah Chowdary Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess him from the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents, in Sy.No.355/1, situated at Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and District, without issuing any notice to him, as arbitrary and illegal and a consequential direction to the respondents not to dispossess him from the said land. 2. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman, claims to be the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land, having been granted DKT patta by the second respondent vide proceedings D.R.No.385/82 dated 22-08- 1982. It is stated that he has been in peaceful possession of the said land since then and is undertaking cultivation therein. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, without issuing any notice to him, are proposing to allot the said land to the Urban Development Authority by dispossessing him. 3. A counter affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on behalf of the respondents, stating that the subject land was recorded as Banjar in the revenue records and the same was subdivided into 11 subdivisions. It is stated that the land in question was never assigned to the petitioner and there is also no D.R. File, as alleged by the petitioner, whereby he claims that he was assigned patta. It is the case of the respondents that the document produced by the petitioner is bogus and the same is not emanated from the revenue records. 4. In spite of such counter affidavit, when it was the case of the petitioner that the original patta produced by him was, in fact, issued by the respondents, this court, by order dated, 21-10-2008, called for a report from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam pursuant to which the learned District Collector, Visakhapatnam got enquired into the claim of the petitioner through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam Mandal, and submitted a report. The relevant portion of the said report is as under: “The Revenue Divisional Officer has finally concluded that, no ‘D’ form Patta was granted to Sri C. Yellaji Rao, S/o. Appanna for the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.00 cents covered by S.No.355/1 of Madhurawada village of Visakhapatnam (Rural)mandal and he was never in possession of the land. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam along with its enclosures is filed herewith.” 5. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no proper opportunity is given to the petitioner, but it is evident from the aforementioned report that the respondents have sent notice to the petitioner before conducting enquiry to the address furnished by him in the writ petition. Hence, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case. In spite of the report submitted by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, pursuant to the directions of this court, it is still submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the patta granted to the petitioner is genuine and due to lack of proper opportunity to the petitioner, the genuineness of the said document could not proved. The respondents have verified the relevant records before submitting the report and they have, therein, reiterated the stand taken by them in the counter affidavit that no patta was, in fact, granted to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is to be seen there are serious factual disputes in this writ petition, which would hinder this court in recording a definite finding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even now, if the petitioner is of the view that he holds title over the subject land by virtue of patta that is said to have been granted to him, he is at liberty to establish his case before the competent civil court. In view of denial of grant of patta by the respondents in their counter affidavit, as reiterated in the aforesaid report of the District Collector, no relief as sought for can be granted in this writ petition. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. February 11, 2009 MRR