IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 16808 of 2008 Between: Paadi Kistamma W/o.Venkataiah R/o.Annamrajupalli village Cheekavolu P.O., Sydampuram Mandal Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub Collector, Gudur,Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District 3 The Tahsildar,Sydapuram Mandal Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District 4 Revenue Inspector, Sydapuram Mandal Sri Potti Sriramulu, Nellore District 5 K.Kotaiah S/o.S.Sabbaiah Annamrajupalli, Sydapuram Mandal Nellore District .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in removing the fence and proposing to lay road at the instance of rivals of the petitioner and the Respondents 1 and 2 in not taking any action against the petitioner representation dated 21.7.2008 in respect of the house site extent 240 sq.yards situated at Annamrajupalli village, Sydapuram Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and bounded by: East: site of Bathula Chenchaiah South: House of Bathula Sankenna West: House of Paadi Kistamma North: Public street as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.M.VINOBHA DEVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner stating that she is the owner of the vacant site (Gramanatham) of an extent of 240 square yards having purchased the same from one late Bathala Chenchaiah of the same village under a sale letter dated 3.11.1993 and since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same and is also paying the house tax. While so, on 11.7.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. the Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Mandal Surveyor, Village Revenue Oﬃcer and Sub- Inspector of Sydapuram Mandal have entered into the site forcibly and removed the fence on the southern side of the site to widen the road from three feet to eight feet, without any authority of law due to some political pressure and, therefore, she gave a police complaint against the villagers and a case was also registered under Section 154 and 150 Cr.P.C. and the same are pending. It is stated that she also made a representation to the Sub-Collector, Gudur bringing to his notice about the incident on 21.7.2008 but so far, no action has been taken on the said representation and hence she ﬁled the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned government Pleader for Revenue. On 4.8.2008, this Court granted one week’s time to the learned Government Pleader to get instructions and also directed the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that date. Later on, the matter underwent several adjournments and ultimately the unoﬃcial respondents as well as the oﬃcial respondents ﬁled counter aﬃdavits. The stand of the respondents is that as per the village records, the land in S.No.82 is a village site and in that a 8 feet width cart track was there and the petitioner encroached about 4 feet stating that she purchased the same through an unregistered deed. It was also stated that the government is the owner of the said land and the petitioner has purchased the same from unauthorized person who has no title over the property. As the petitioner was objecting the neighbors to pass through the pathway, one K.Ramanamma has ﬁled a petition to clear the encroachment. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was issued with a notice on 7.7.2008 directing her to produce the documentary evidence, if any about the ownership of the land but she refused to receive the notice and, therefore, substituted service was eﬀected and after conducting enquiry, it was found that the petitioner encroached 4 feet pathway and accordingly the encroachment was removed much before filing this writ petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no notice was, in fact, served on the petitioner and reiterated the averments mentioned in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition stating that the petitioner purchased the said land by a sale letter. Admittedly, the issue whether the petitioner has encroached the government land which is a pathway or the issue as to whether the land in dispute is really purchased by the petitioner as contended by her by way of a sale letter are questions of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in the absence of any material placed before this Court. That apart, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that already the encroachment has been removed to an extent of 4 feet and the authorities have not touched the land of the petitioner. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer to examine the whole issue and the same is still pending and, therefore, appropriate directions may be given to the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Gudur to dispose of the said representation. In the circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Gudur, the 2 nd respondent herein is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.14.10.2008 msv