IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 27784 of 2007 Between: 1 M. Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Rangappa, 2 M. Gangulamma, W/o. Ramachandra, 3 D. Sudha Rani, W/o. Kadireepathi, 4 D. Venkalakshmama, W/o. Narasimhulu, 5 J. Reddemma, W/o. J. Kadiappa, 6 B. Venkatalakshmu, W/o. Pothanna, 7 P. Eswaamma, W/o. Narasimhulu, 8 J. Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Gangulappa, 9 J. Kadiramma, W/o. Mallaiah, 10 C. Chinna papa, W/o. Venkata Swamy, 11 P. Parvathamma, W/o. Narayana, 12 D. Lakshmamma, W/o. Veerapa, 13 D. Seethamma, W/o. Veeamallu, 14 L. Papakka, W/o. Veerapa, 15 M. Lakshmu, W/o. Venkataswamy, 16 M. Gangulamma, W/o. Ramachandra, 17 G. Mangamma, W/o. Krishnapa, 18 M. Lakshmi Devi, W/o. Lakshmannam 19 J. Pabhavatamma, W/o. Ramana, 20 N. Redeemma, W/o. Venkatamana, 21 M. Gowramma, W/o. Venkataia, 22 M. Venkatamma, W/o. Seelappa, 23 L. Amavathamma, W/o. Sreenivasulu, 24 L. Chinnappa, S/o. Yerrappa, 25 K. Narayanamma, W/o. Mallaiah, 26 K. Maleeswara, W/o. Sreeramulu, 27 P. Chinnakka, W/o. Ramaswamy, 28 Y. Saraswathi, W/o. Sivappa, 29 D. Anitha, W/o. Gopalu, 30 S. Sulochana, W/o. Gopalu, 31 Amaravathi, W/o. Chandra 32 D. Achamma, W/o. Raghupathi, All are Hindus, Colli and cultivation, R/o. Mudivariplalle, H/o. Vempalle Village, Bommanacheruvu Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Madanapalle Revenue Division, Madanapalle Town & Mandal. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle Revenue Mandal, Madanapalle. 4 The Sub Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Madanapalle, Madanapalle Mandal. 5 K. Pullaiah, S/o. Thippaiah, R/o. Tekulapalem, H/o. Vempalle Revenue Village, Bommancheuvu Panchayat, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 4 & 5 in preventing the petitioners from availing the beneﬁts under the scheme of Indiramma Housing Scheme and seeking to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land and houses situated in Sy.No. 1310, 1316 & 1317 of Vempally Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently diec thte respondents from intefering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners land and houses situated in Sy.No. 1310, 1316 & 1317 of Vempally Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.PRAMOD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 27784 of 2007 Oral Order: The writ petition is misconceived. It is by (32) individuals who seek a declaration that the action of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in preventing the petitioners from availing the beneﬁts under the Indiramma Housing Scheme is illegal and for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of their lands and houses situated in survey Nos. 1310, 1316 and 1317 of Vempally village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District; and by an amendment ordered on 25-06-2008 in W.P.M.P.No. 2711 of 2007 the petitioners further seek extension of the beneﬁts under the Indiramma Project for Construction of Pucca Houses in the above land. The substantive grievance of the petitioners as set out in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is that the 4th respondent at the instance of the 5th respondent who claims title to the property in question, is interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment. At the oral hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the revenue oﬃcials have initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Occupants of Homesteads (Conferment of Ownership) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). Earlier, the 5th respondent ﬁled W.P.No. 10764 of 2008 in response to the move of the revenue oﬃcials in invoking the provisions of the Act contending that the said Act is inapplicable to private agricultural lands. The said writ petition was disposed of at the stage of admission permitting the petitioners therein (including the 5th respondent) to ﬁle explanation to the show cause notice and on the petitioners’ producing appropriate material to show that the land is private land , directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider the same and drop further proceedings under the provisions of the Act and till such orders are passed, directing that the petitioners therein shall not be dispossessed. Even earlier, aggrieved by the alleged interference by the 4th respondent herein of his possession and enjoyment of the property, the 5 th respondent had ﬁled W.P.No.10948 of 1998. By an order dated 15-03-2007 this Court directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the possession of the 5th respondent herein without following the due process of law. On receipt of such orders of this Court, the 4th respondent states (in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled in this writ petition), he is not interfering with the possession of the 5th respondent of the property in an extent of Ac.04-46 cents in survey Nos. 1310, 1316 and 1317 of Vempalli village, as the same is in possession of the 5th respondent. From the rival pleadings in the writ petition it is clear that there are regnant disputes between the petitioners and the 5th respondent with regard to the ownership and possession of the property. The petitioners claim entitlement to possession and enjoyment of the property qua the pattas/possession certiﬁcates issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer. As is apparent from the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 5th respondent and the proceedings in the earlier W.P.No. 10764 of 2008, the proceedings under the Act have been initiated. The State apparently recognizes the ownership and the 5th respondent in respect of the lands in question. If that be so, even before conclusion of the proceedings under the Act, no State actor has the power, jurisdiction or authority to issue possession certiﬁcates or pattas in favour of the petitioners or any other individual. Such conduct would be in abuse of oﬃcial powers and may amount to cheating gullible members of the civil society. In any event, the pleadings in this writ petition and other proceedings referred to above initiated by the 5th respondent present disputed and adversarial factual positions with regard to the possession and ownership of the property in question. Such disputes are not appropriately determined either by the exercise of force by the 4th respondent or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Whichever party whether the petitioners on the one hand or the 5th respondent on the other desires resolution of such disputed positions must approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaratory or other injunctive relief, as the case may be. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at any rate are misconceived. On the analysis above, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the aggrieved to pursue appropriate alternative statutory remedies. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 06-09-2008 pvks