THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH REVIEW WPMP NO. 17826 OF 2008 AND Writ Petition No.18206 OF 2005 DT.3.3.2011 Between: Smt Y Sobharani … Petitioner And The state of AP, rep by its District Collector, Krishna and ors … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: G P For Revenue Counsel for Respondent No. 5 : Sri G Vasantha Rayudu The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH REVIEW WPMP NO. 17826 OF 2008 AND Writ Petition No.18206 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders in RC No.B.8/2004 dated 8.7.2005 of the third respondent as illegal and for a consequential direction for handing over of possession of the land to an extent of Ac.0.33 ½ cents in RS No.40/A of Surayapalem village of Gollapudi hamlet and for a further direction to fifth respondent to pay compensation for illegal enjoyment of the subject land. This Court by order dated 18.8.2005 dismissed the writ petition, the operative portion of said order reads as under; “On a perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned under which provision of laws he seeks direction for dismantling the house constructed by the fifth respondent in the site of the petitioner after cancellation of the possession certificate issued by the third respondent. Therefore, the only course open to the petitioner is to approach a competent civil Court for recovery of possession and the third respondent has no power to dismantle the house constructed by the fifth respondent and deliver possession of the site to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.” The petitioner seeks review of the said order by way of present Miscellaneous Petition in WPMP No. 17826 of 2008, on the ground that the said order is against the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 300- A of the Constitution of India and that this Court has not properly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when illegal constructions were made based on an illegal possession certificate issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri G Vasantha Rayudu for fifth respondent. The case of the petitioner is that her elder brother is the absolute owner of the subject land and that he has gifted the same to her towards ‘Pasupukunkuma’ vide registered deed dated 23.6.1964 vide document no. 1046 and handed over the possession to her, thus, she has become absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. While so, based on the possession certificate dated 6.8.2001 alleged to have been issued by the then Mandal Revenue officer, the 5th respondent started certain constructions over the subject land, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein made a representation to the second respondent/Sub Collector requesting to cause an enquiry and to stop the illegal constructions being made by the 5th respondent. In turn, the second respondent issued orders to the third respondent to take steps to stop the constructions being made by the 5th respondent and on receipt of such orders, the second respondent issued notice dated 12.1.2004 to the 5th respondent to stop constructions forthwith. Questioning the said notice dated 12.1.2004, the 5th respondent filed W P No.1670 of 2004 which was disposed of by orders dated 6.12.2004 directing the respondents 2 and 3 therein to conduct necessary enquiry and to pass appropriate orders after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties. It was also directed that meanwhile the petitioner/5th respondent herein shall not make any further constructions nor alienate the property in question. Pursuant to the above orders, the Mandal Revenue Officer, conducted an enquiry and passed orders in proceedings No.B.8/2004 dated 8.7.2004 cancelling the possession certificate bearing proceedings No.SR/101/2001 dated 6.8.2001 issued in favour of the 5th respondent and directed the 4th respondent/Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession of the subject land immediately and to handover the possession to the petitioner. Learned counsel for 5th respondent submits that as against the orders dated 8.7.2004, the 5th respondent has submitted an appeal, however, copy of same is not filed before this Court. The only question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for possession over the subject land pursuant to orders dated 8.7.2004 cancelling the possession certificate of the 5th respondent. The main thrust of the learned counsel for petitioner is that so long as the orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 8.7.2004 subsists having not been either stayed or set aside, the petitioner is entitled to possession. On the other hand, the learned counsel for 5th respondent submits that merely because the possession certificate issued in favour of the 5th respondent dated 6.8.2001 is cancelled by orders dated 8.7.2004, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to possession. I am unable to accept such an argument, inasmuch, the possession certificate of the 5th respondent was cancelled after conducting an enquiry by affording reasonable opportunity and after cancellation, he no right whatsoever over the subject land. Further in the impugned order 8.7.2004 the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Vijayawada Rural is directed to take possession of the site and immediately handover it to same Yelamanchili Sobha Rani/petitioner herein. Except stating that an appeal is filed against the impugned orders, the 5th respondent did not choose to file a piece of paper to substantiate her right over the property. It is not clear whether any appeal is field against the impugned order. However, the fact remains as long as the order dated 8.7.2004 subsists and the petitioner has got every right to possession. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents 3 and 4 are directed to implement the order dated 8.7.2004 and to hand over the possession of the subject land to the petitioner forthwith. It is needless to mention that appeal, if any filed by the 5th respondent is pending, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court during the disposal of the present writ petition. In the result the Review W.P.M.P. No. 17826 of 2005 is ordered and W.P. No. 18206 of 2005 is hereby allowed. No Costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 3.3.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH REVIEW WPMP NO. 17826 OF 2008 AND Writ Petition No.18206 OF 2005 DT.3.3.2011