IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5022 of 2001 Between: Tamanampudi Lakshminarayana Reddy, S/o. Kaniki Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 Divisional Surveyor, Revenue Divisional Office, Kakinada Division, Kakinada. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, U. Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Mandal Surveyor, U. Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Yeluri Tirumala Tirupati Venkateswara Ramakrishna Avataram, S/o. Veerraju, Komaragiri, U Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in declare of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authority in interfering with petitioner possession of the property of 0.79 cents in Survey No.69/1C2 of Uppada Village, U. Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to take steps to disturb the boundaries of petitioner land in survey No. 69/1C1, 1C2 and 1C4, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5022 of 2001 O R D E R: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondent authority, in interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the land of an extent of 0.79 cents in Survey No.69/1C2 of Uppada village, U.Kothapalli Mandal, East Godavari District as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner’s case in short is that he had purchased an extent of Ac.3.12 cents through registered sale deed, that the schedule property consisted of three sub division numbers of diﬀerent extents in diﬀerent survey numbers, that he has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the land, that the ﬁfth respondent had ﬁled a petition before the Revenue Authorities requesting them to identify his land, that he had ﬁled W.P.No.683 of 2001 and that the fourth respondent had issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to appear in connection with the survey being conducted by the authority. The petitioner states that his son appeared before the authority who, instead of proceeding with the survey, had postponed the survey to a later date asking the petitioner to produce documents of title. Petitioner’s apprehension is that, under the guise of the orders of this Court, the second and ﬁfth respondents are trying to interfere with his possession, disturbing the boundaries and taking steps to lay the stones dividing some part of his land only to favour the ﬁfth respondent. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, wherein it is speciﬁcally stated that the respondents had never interfered with the possession of the petitioner nor had they disturbed the boundaries or insisted that he should hand over Ac.0.45 cents of land from out of Survey No.69/1C2. Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it would suﬃce if this Court records this admission by the oﬃcial respondents and that no further orders would be required in this regard. The statement, made in the counter aﬃdavit of respondents 1 and 4, that the respondents had never interfered with the possession of the property nor had disturbed the boundaries or visited the petitioner’s land of Ac.0.45 cents, is made part of the record. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 5th November, 2008. PNV