IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14512 of 2008 Between: Sayala Rajendra Prasad S/o.late Aseervadam Vempadu H/o.Kokkirapadu,Peddapadu(M) W.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector W.G District Eluru 2 The Tahsildar Pedapadu(M) W.G District 3 The A.P Eastern Power Distribution Co.Ltd Eluru Rep.by its Divisional Engineer .....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 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 petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of ac 0.60 cents in Sy.No.180 and 181 of Vempadu(V) H/o. Kokkirapadu of Pedapadu(M) West Godavari District and dispossing the petitioner from the said land even without any notice ro due process of law as illegal arbitrary and violatove of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the said land and to consider petitioner's request for grant of patta in respect of the said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.14512 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that his grandfather occupied an extent of 60 cents of waste land in Survey Nos.180 and 181 of Vempadu village about 40 years back and converted it into agricultural land and enjoyed the same during his life time along with his brother, and after his demise, the petitioner and his paternal uncle are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The petitioner further states that he has no other property and is eking out his livelihood from the income derived from the said land besides attending coolie work. While so, when respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely, Tahsildar, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, and the A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd, Eluru, respectively, tried to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the land in question, he made representations to the first respondent-District Collector on 03.12.2007 and 10.12.2007 requesting him not to dispossess him from the land in question. After some time, when respondent Nos.2 and 3 again tried to interfere with his possession and directed him not to enter into the land in question on the premise that the third respondent is going to construct electricity sub-station, the petitioner again made a representation to the first respondent on 30.06.2008 stating that the land in question is only the source of his livelihood and there is vast extent of Government land available in the village which can be used for construction of electricity sub-station. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that without considering his representations made to the first respondent, the respondents are now trying to evict him from the land in question. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel for the third respondent. A perusal of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that except stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the land in question for the last 40 years, the petitioner has not filed any material in proof of the same. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the land in question and he is an encroacher of the same. Since the petitioner is not the owner of the land in question, which is now sought to be taken over by the respondents for construction of sub-station, which is for public purpose, he cannot be allowed to contend that he may be allowed to continue in possession of the same, and no relief as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition, can be granted. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 09.07.2008. VGSR