IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7502 of 2000 Between: Tynana Ramu Naidu S/o. Erukunaidu R/o. Amruthapuram Village Sabbavaram Mandal Erstwhile, Anakapallie Tqluk Visakhapatnan District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sarpanch Amruthapuram Gram Panchayat Sabbavara Mandal Visakhapatnam District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Sabbavara Mandal Visakhapatnam District 3 The Station House Officer Sabbavaram Police Station Sabbavara Mandal Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the rice mill of the petitioner in Survey No.229/5 of Amruthapuram Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the arguing counsel has not attended the Court today and he sought for an adjournment. As no one represented the petitioner yesterday, the case is posted today ‘for dismissal’. Today, considering the fact that the writ petition is of the year 2000, I declined the request of the learned counsel for adjournment. I have perused the record. The case of the petitioner is that land admeasuring Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.229/5 of Amruthapuram Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, belongs to him and that after obtaining necessary permissions, he constructed a rice mill on the said land in the name of Sri Bangaramma Rice Mill. The renewal of the said rice mill was made on 05.07.1972 for a period of one year. The rice mill was not in the running condition at the time of filing of the writ petition and when the petitioner started repairing roof of the rice mill, respondent No.1 out of political rivalry issued notice, dated 18.03.2000 requiring him to submit the title deeds and building plan of the rice mill within seven days to the Gram Panchayat. The said notice was issued in the name of the petitioner’s brother’s son, Sannibabu. Another notice, dated 29.03.2000 was issued by respondent No.1 in the name of the said person. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 gave a complaint to respondent No.3, who issued a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on 31.03.2000 requiring the petitioner to be present before him on the same day at 5.00 p.m. It was alleged in the said notice that the petitioner was undertaking construction in the Government poramboke land in Survey No.225. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 02.04.2000 by enclosing copies of title deeds and copy of blue print issued by the Health Officer. On the complaint made by respondent Nos.1 and 3, respondent No.2 orally instructed the petitioner not to make any construction or repairs to the rice mill. This action of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia averred that the land admeasuring Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.229/5 is the Government land and not a private land; that as per the revenue records, the total extent of Survey No.229/5 is Ac.1.75 cents and the nature of the land is Banjar, meaning, Government land, and that the petitioner unauthorizedly occupied Ac.0.15 cents of the said land and, therefore, action was initiated against him. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit, in which, it is stated that a complaint was received by his predecessor in office from Amruthapuram Gram Panchayat stating that the building is being constructed without applying for permission; that deity festivals of Sri Bangaru Thalli temple are performed over Ac.0.75 cents of land in Survey No.229/5 belonging to the Government and vested in the Gram Panchayat, over which the said building was being constructed; that his predecessor called Sannibabu in order to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the complaint by issuing notice, dated 31.03.2000. He further stated that at the relevant point of time, namely, last week of March, 2000, there was a law and order problem due to group rivalries in the Village and that the petitioner, who is an Ex-Sarpanch, is at logger heads with rival political groups over the land in dispute and that only in order to pacify both the groups, notices were issued and the parties were summoned to the Police Station. Having carefully considered the pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that the issue whether the petitioner is raising construction over the Government land or not is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 are illegally interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property, he is entitled to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate relief against them. As regards respondent No.3, in his counter-affidavit, he categorically denied the unlawful interference. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner, if any against respondent No.3 ceases to exist. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in the event respondent Nos.1 and 2 unlawfully interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in his occupation. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 24.04.2001 is vacated and WPMP.No.9853 of 2001 is dismissed. WPMP.Nos.26 and 14694 of 2002 and WVMP.Nos.2661 of 2001 and 1786 and 1 of 2002 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th JULY, 2008. kvni