THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.1637 of 2008 Dated:26.08.2010 Between: Kothuru Venkata Sesha Ratnam .. Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.1637 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with her possession over the land admeasuring Acs.2.49 cents comprised in Survey No.570/2/C of Veleru Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction. It is the case of the petitioner that she purchased the land under a registered sale deed dated 24.12.1998 from Smt. Boppana Dhanyalakshmi, w/o. Boppana Srinivasa Rao. Her grievance is that while she is in possession of the land, the revenue officials tried to interfere with her possession. Therefore, she filed the instant Writ Petition. The Tahsildar, Bapulapadu Mandal, filed counter affidavit. The gist of the same is as follows. The total extent of land in R.S.No.570 of Veleru Village is Acs.15.81 cents. The petitioner’s vendor Smt. Dhanyalakshmi filed declaration, and she was declared as surplus landholder to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents. At that time, R.S.No.570 was sub-divided and the land to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents was included in R.S.No.570/2 (evolved as Sub-Division No.8A/15/91) and was taken possession by the Government and the same was assigned to landless poor persons. In 2007, while verifying the assigned lands, it was noticed that the land to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents was in possession of one Smt. Adapa Rama Devi. Therefore, necessary proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (hereafter called as the Act). The land was resumed from Smt. Adapa Rama Devi and re-assigned to ten beneficiaries as house sites. The petitioner’s land is comprised in R.S.No.570/1C and not in R.S.No.570/2. In any view of the matter, the respondents never interfered with her possession over the land in R.S.No.570/1C. Only the encroacher, who encroached into Ac.0.69 cents of surplus land in R.S.No.570/2, was got evicted. The counter also gives 11 reasons to show that the land allegedly in possession of the petitioner is comprised in R.S.No.570/1C but not in R.S.No.570/2. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. Though there is no specific denial that the land purchased by her is comprised in Survey No.570/1C, she averred as follows. The respondents contended in the counter that R.S.No.570 was sub-divided into two sub-divisions during 1978 i.e., R.S.No.570/1 and 570/2 and after making such sub- division an extent of Ac.0.69 cents of land in R.S.No.570/2 was taken possession as surrendered surplus land and the same was re-allotted to ten beneficiaries as house sites. I am not concerned with the land of Ac.0.69 cents said to have been assigned to the landless poor persons. I purchased the land admeasuring Acs.2.49 cents (main S.No.570). The respondents are not entitled to interfere with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land which was purchased by me by way of a registered sale deed. The counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the surplus land surrendered by petitioner’s vendor is assigned to landless poor persons for housing purpose, the land in possession of the petitioner cannot be interfered with. There cannot be any dispute on this aspect. Whatever be the mistake in the sale deed, if the petitioner is in possession of the land as alleged, the respondents cannot be interfered with her possession, without following due process of law. Whether the surplus land surrendered by petitioner’s vendor also forms part of the land, covered by the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, or whether it was situated adjacent to the petitioner’s land and whether the assignees interfered with her possession, are all matters of enquiry. These disputed questions of fact cannot be decided before this Court. The dispute of title has to be resolved by a civil Court. If so advised, the petitioner can do so. In the counter affidavit, it is clearly stated that the land, which was resumed under the provisions of the Act, is already reassigned in favour of ten beneficiaries. This is not denied. Therefore, observing that the petitioner’s possession cannot be disturbed without following due process of law, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the civil Court. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J 26.08.2010 KH