THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11370 of 2008 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for consideration and being disposed of by this order. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate land admeasuring Acs.5.25 cents covered by Survey No.819/2 situated at Motakatla Village, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of land admeasuring Acs.5.25 cents covered by Survey No.819/2 of Motakatla Village, by virtue of his purchase from the earlier owner Sri Ch.Siva Reddy by a registered sale deed, dated 23.02.2007. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the fourth respondent came to the said land on 24.05.2008 and instructed him to vacate the same on the ground that it was an assigned land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that as he is in possession of the land in question by virtue of his purchase from the earlier owner by registered sale deed, dated 23.02.2007, the respondents cannot dispossess him as otherwise than due process of law and they have no jurisdiction to ask him for vacating the land in question. The fourth respondent - Tahsildar, Sambepalli Mandal, Kadapa District, filed a counter-affidavit. In the said counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that land admeasuring Acs.5.25 cents covered by Survey No.819/2 is a Government Assessed Waste land and was originally assigned to Sri Kona Chenchaiah, Son of Venkatappa as per Darakast conditions. It is further stated that the legal heirs of the original assignee sold the assigned land to Sri C.Siva Reddy, who in turn, sold the same to the petitioner by registered sale deed, dated 23.02.2007. It is also stated that on mere apprehension, this Writ Petition is filed and if the petitioner is to be evicted from the land in question, the respondents would follow due procedure contemplated under the law. As evident from the counter-affidavit, as of now, there is no eviction order passed against the petitioner. At the same time, it is to be noticed that the respondents have admitted in the counter-affidavit that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner by a registered sale deed and in consequent to such purchase, he is in actual and physical possession of it. In the absence of any order of eviction, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the land in question as otherwise than due process of law. In view of the averment in the counter-affidavit that there is no order of eviction passed against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question and interfere with his enjoyment over it. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the validity of transfer. If the transfer is invalid, this order will not preclude the respondents to take steps in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th JUNE, 2011. kvni