IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25123 of 2005 Between: 1 Payam Gaddelamma W/o.(Late) Appanna Dora, Scheduled Tribe (Koya Dora), R/o.China Ramanayyapeta Devipatnam Mandal East Godavri District. 2 Madakam Ganga W/o.Chinnabbai Dora, Scheduled Tribe (Koya Dora) (Koya Dora), R/o.China Ramanayyapeta Devipatnam Mandal East Godavri District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Devipatnam. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer Rampachodavaram. 3 Sub Inspector of Police Devipatnam, all East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.BALAGOPAL Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 15: MR. BADANA BHASKARA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in pressuring and forcing the petitioners to vacate the land admeasuring 25.88 hectares in Survey Nos.61, 64/3, 65/2, 66, 67/2, 69, 101/1, 101/2, 36/2, 42/1, 42/2, 42/3, 55 and 56/2 of China Ramanayyapet, Devipatnam Mandal, as arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 15, who were impleaded by order, dated 02.07.2008 in WPMP.No.35821 of 2005, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the record. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioners is that the above mentioned extent of land is in collective enjoyment of 20 to 25 tribal families including the families of the petitioners and that the non-tribals are pressuring respondent Nos.1 to 3 to ensure that the petitioners are evicted from the said land. In support of their plea of possession, the petitioners ﬁled certiﬁcates issued by the Panchayat Secretary, China Ramanayyapeta, Devipatnam Mandal. The impleaded respondents in their counter-aﬃdavit strongly denied the claim of the petitioners that either they or other tribal families are in possession of the above- mentioned land. They pleaded and ﬁled documents in support of their plea that as far back as 21.11.1981, the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued proceedings holding that the petitioners are entitled to settlement pattas and that in pursuance of the said proceedings, the petitioners were granted pattas for diﬀerent extents of land. They further pleaded that anticipating acquisition of land for an irrigation project, the petitioners have come out with a false plea of being in possession only in order to take the compensation and that the petitioners have no semblance of legal right to maintain this writ petition. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not ﬁled any counter- affidavit. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the basis of written para-wise remarks submitted that neither petitioners nor other tribals are in possession of the land in question and that the said land is covered by pattas. From the material ﬁled by the respective parties, it is quite evident that respondent Nos.4 to 15 were granted pattas in respect of the land in question, but the petitioners claim that they and some other families are in possession of the said land. In support of their plea of possession, as noted above, the certiﬁcates issued by the Panchayat Secretary were filed. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to decide the disputed questions of title and possession. Ordinarily, if a person’s possession is threatened by another person, he is entitled to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit. However, in this case, the grievance of the petitioners is against revenue and police departments. While it is not possible for this Court to render a ﬁnding as to whether the petitioners are in possession of the land in question or not, if the physical possession of the land is with the petitioners, neither the revenue nor the police department can arbitrarily interfere with their possession and evict them without following due process of law. Similarly, if the petitioners are not in possession, in the guise of any protective order of this Court, they cannot be permitted to enter the land and forcibly occupy the same. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to disturb the possession of the persons, who are in actual occupation of the land as on today. If there is an inter se dispute regarding the possession between petitioners on the one side and respondent Nos.4 to 15 on the other, they shall be free to avail the civil remedies against each other. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni