IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.12751 of 2000 Between: Ketineni Venkayya, S/o.Narasayya, R/o.Yerraboyanapalli, Kallur Mandal, Khammam District. … Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.12751 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 26.05.2000 passed by the 2nd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to take necessary action for delivery of possession of the schedule land, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and to set aside the same, insofar as the land of the petitioner herein is concerned. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas in Survey No.345 of Yerraboyanapalli Village of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. The said land was purchased from the pattadar through an agreement of sale before 1973 by his father, Narsaiah. The father of the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said land, which was a patta dry land, from the date of purchase, and the same was developed by his father and converted the said land as a rain fed wet land and raising wet crops for the past so many years and paying the land revenue to the Government. His father’s name was also entered in the revenue records as possessor and except his father and his family members, nobody was cultivating the said land since 1973 and the respondents 3 to 9 have no right or possession, whatsoever in respect of the said land in Survey No.345 of Yerraboynapalli of Kallur Mandal, Khammam District. Further, it is also submitted that the above said property was fell to the share of petitioner, at the time of partition of his joint family properties in the year 1993-1994. From the date of partition, the petitioner is enjoying the land to an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas in Survey No.345 of Yerrboyanapalli Village, as an owner and his name was also entered in the revenue records as owner and possessor of the said property. Further it is also submitted that the 1st respondent came to his land on 01.07.2000 along with respondents 4 to 9 and tried to measure the same. When the petitioner questioned the action of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent stated that the 2nd respondent passed orders in Tenancy Case No.1 of 1999 and directed him to handover the land in Survey No.345 to an extent of Acs.2.25 guntas along with other lands in other survey numbers. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a copy of the order and found that he is not a party to the order passed by the 2nd respondent and the respondents therein are Votru Hanumaiah and Votru Venkamma, who have no land in the said Survey No.345 of Yerraboyanapalli Village, Kallur Mndal, Khammam District. He further submitted that the land consists in Survey No.345 is Acs.2.25 guntas wherein the petitioner and his paternal uncles by name Gopaiah and Ramaiah are the owners and possessors for the said land. Further, the said Survey No.345 is sub-divided as 345/A, 345/AA and 345/E to an extent of Ac.0.35 guntas to each number and Survey No.345/A is fell to the share of the petitioner herein. It is also submitted by the petitioner that unofficial respondents herein have never filed any suit or petition against the petitioner herein, before the official respondents and the official respondents herein have also never issued any notice or proceedings and without issuing any notice or initiating any proceedings against the petitioner, the 1st respondent herein is trying to dispossess the petitioner under the guise of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent against the respondents in Tenancy No.1 of 1999, which is not binding on the petitioner herein. The 2nd respondent passed the orders without looking into the records and without issuing notice to the persons who are in possession of the land in Survey No.345. Therefore, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas comprised in Survey No.345 of Yerraboyanapalli Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District, is illegal, arbitrary null and void. Hence, the present petition. On behalf of the official respondents, denying the averments of the petitioner, counter has been filed wherein, it is categorically submitted that the respondents 3 to 9 herein have filed an appeal No.1 of 1999 before the 2nd respondent herein and the 2nd respondent passed orders for restoration of possession of petition schedule property i.e. Survey No.349 and 350 to the respondents 3 to 9 on 26.05.2000. Therefore, the petitioner herein is nothing to do with the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. Further, it is also submitted that the 1st respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer has not taken any action for dispossessing the petitioner from his land in Survey No.345. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the operative portion of the order passed by the 2nd respondent is only in respect of Survey Nos.349 and 350 and that order has been passed in view of the orders passed by the Suboridinate Judge, Sathupalli, in O.S. No.48 of 1989. Therefore, the impugned order does not deal with the land claimed by the petitioner at all. Therefore, there is no cause of action to approach this Court. Though the case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Survey No.345, Yerraboyanapplli Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District, it is categorically submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the operative portion of the order passed by the 2nd respondent is only in respect of Survey Nos.349 and 350 and that order has been passed in view of the orders passed by the Suboridinate Judge, Sathupalli, in O.S. No.48 of 1989. Therefore, the impugned order does not deal with the land claimed by the petitioner at all. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that if for any reason, the 1st respondent would like to take any action, pursuant to the orders passed by the 2nd respondent, without giving any notice to the petitioner, the 1st respondent cannot disturb the petitioner’s possession, in respect of the land claimed by him in Survey No.345, Yerraboyanapalli Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents, that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent does not deal with the land claimed by the petitioner, with the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 23.07.2010. LSK