IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21912 of 2000 Between: C. Raghuma Reddy & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21912 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plots held by the petitioners without any notice and without following due process of law, as illegal and unconstitutional. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by petitioner No.4 on behalf of all the petitioners, it is inter alia averred that one Khaza Shakir Hussain was the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.30.00 in Sy.No.59 (Part) of Karmanghat Village and the same was in Dawami lease of the family of which one T. Ramanath Gupta was the Manager and that all the revenue records had shown the said person as the possessor and enjoyer of the said land since the year 1963. The petitioners filed pahanies and No.2 adangals in support of this contention. The petitioners further averred that the said family of Sri T. Ramanath Gupta was declared as having 0.5868 standard holding which was within the ceiling limit under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘the 1973 Act’) and subsequently the said Ramanath Gupta was granted ryothwari patta by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad East Division under Section 8 read with Section 10 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 in respect of the said extent of Ac.30.00 and a certiﬁcate was obtained by him from the Special Oﬃcer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings on 24.08.1979 to the eﬀect that the lands covered by Sy.No.59 are situated outside the municipal limits and within the peripheral limits of Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration. The petitioners also averred that the said lands, which were partitioned under the family partition of the said Ramanath Gupta, were converted into house sites and that they have purchased some of those plots under registered sale deeds. It is stated that the respondents in order to rehabilitate the slum dwellers displaced under the widening of drainage nalas in the Hyderabad city came to the petitioners’ plots on 10.11.2000 and threatened them to take possession of the open plots for the said purpose. The petitioners therefore ﬁled this writ petition questioning this action of the respondents. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, it is averred that the land admeasuring Ac.430.25 guntas, classiﬁed as dry and Kancha Dastugardhan, was in possession of Khaja Shakir Hussain, Khaja Nasar Hussain and Razia Sultana as inamdars and Smt. Neelima Devi, wife of Sudershan Reddy was recorded as actual cultivator in column No.16, that the said three persons ﬁled declaration under the provisions of the 1973 Act and in pursuance of the same, the Land Reforms Tribunal passed ﬁnal order dated 02.03.1996 under Section 10 (1) of the 1973 Act declaring that the said land holders hold an extent of Ac.226.48 cents in Sy.No.59/A in excess of their ceiling area, that accordingly the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Ranga Reddy East Division issued Form No.IX under Section 11 of the 1973 Act on 07.03.1996 to take possession of the surplus land and that in pursuance of the same, possession was taken on 18.12.1997. In reply to the averment of the petitioners that the declaration ﬁled by Ramanath Gupta was accepted and he was held to be holding land less than the ceiling area, respondent No.3 in paragraph 5 stated hereunder: “In reply to the allegations made in para 3 of the petitioners’ aﬃdavit it is submitted that the petitioners may be put to strict proof of the averments. The declaration in respect of Sy.No.59 has been ﬁled under Land Reforms Act, 1973 by the Inamdar i.e., Shakir Hussain only.” Respondent No.3 further stated that the petitioners are not in possession of the land and the respondents wanted to protect the land by ﬁxing boundaries and fencing it. Having carefully considered the pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that respondent No.3 is evasive with respect to the claim of the petitioners that by proceedings dated 12.08.1976 the Land Reforms Tribunal, Hyderabad East Division, Hyderabad District, held that the family of T.Ramanath Gupta, the predecessor-in-title, was holding only 0.5868 standing holding, which is within the ceiling limit by merely stating that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. As a fact, the petitioners ﬁled the copy of the said proceedings as Ex.P2. If respondent No.3 disputed the genuineness of the said document, he should have speciﬁcally pleaded to that eﬀect. In the absence of any such speciﬁc plea raised by respondent No.3, prima facie, it is reasonable to presume that the plea of the petitioners is correct. At any rate, the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioners from the property in question without issuing notice and opportunity of hearing. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners without following due process of Law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.27853 of 2000 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.07.2008 ES