IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24137 of 2001 Between: Y. Durgamba, W/o Y.Sanyasi Lingam Native of Shankarapuram Cuddapah, Presently residing at Flat NO. 115, Sheshadri Block, Seven Hills Apartment, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Cuddapah District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Cuddapah. .....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 preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner by distributing the pattas to the ﬂood victims in the patta land of the petitioner in Sy.No. 419/1 situated in Chinna Chowk Village, Cuddapah District to an extent of 2.00 acres without any notice, without initiating land acquisition proceedings or any other proceedings under the law, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A, of Constitution of India and issue consequential directions to the respondent not to evict and dispossess the petitioner from the above stated patta land. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for the Respondents: 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 trying to dispossess the petitioner by distributing pattas to ﬂood victims in respect of Acs.2.00 of land in Survey No.419/1 of Chinna Chowk Village, Kadapa District as illegal. The petitioner claimed to have purchased Acs.3.60 cents of land in the above mentioned survey number under a registered sale deed in the year 1979. According to the petitioner, her vendor Tupakula Venkatappa purchased the same from K.C.Gurappa under a registered sale deed of year 1975 and the said K.C.Gurappa purchased the said land from Sri T.Govindarajulu, the original owner in the year 1972 under a registered sale deed. According to the petitioner, she sold Acs.1.60 cents out of Acs.3.60 cents under registered sale deeds and retained the balance extent of Acs.2.00 with her and has been cultivating the same. The cause for the petitioner to ﬁle the present writ petition was that respondent No.2 started levelling the land in question with a view to distribute pattas to flood victims, without any notice to her. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2 he traced the history of the land in question as under: A DKT patta was granted to Sri T.Govindarajulu on 04.02.1969 vide patta No.866 of Chinnachowk Revenue Village. As the assignee has not brought the land under cultivation and sold the same to Sri K.C.Gurappa, the assignment was cancelled after following due process of law and the land was resumed to Government by order dated 06.07.1994. The resumption order has become ﬁnal. In order to rehabilitate the ﬂood victims, who were aﬀected by heavy ﬂoods in November, 2001, house site pattas were distributed to them and houses were constructed in the year 2002 by the Government. The petitioner never cultivated the land and is in never possession of the same. Out of the total extent of Acs.10.82 cents, which were resumed to the Government, nearly Acs.2.00 of land is vacant and is under possession of the Government. Though the petitioner stated that she purchased the property under registered sale deed in the year 1979, she did not ﬁle any copy of the registered sale deed. According to the respondents, notice was given to K.C.Gurappa, the purchaser from the assignee before resumption of the land. The question whether by the time the resumption was made the petitioner purchased the assigned land from T.Venkatappa to whom K.C.Gurappa sold the property under registered sale deed, cannot be adjudicated by this Court in the absence of any material ﬁled by the petitioner in support of her plea. If the petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed before 1994 and was in possession at the time of resumption of land, the order of resumption without notice to her would have been illegal. As these disputes are required to be decided by the competent authority in an appropriate proceeding, I am not inclined to entertain these pleas and decide the same on merits in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to ﬁle a detailed representation to respondent No.2 (Tahsildar, Kadapa), within four weeks from today. If such a representation is received by respondent No.2, he shall dispose of the same after giving the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, and considering all the material facts in the light of the observations contained in this order, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.11.2008 va