IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 16634 of 2008 Between: Rapuri Venkatarao S/o.Kondaiah, Ammanabrolu(V) Naguluppalapadu(M) Prakasam District And others ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector Prakasam District Ongole 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Ongole,Prakasam District 3 The Tahsildar Naguluppalapadu(M) Prakasam District 4 Busireddy S/o.Thirupathi Reddy Ammanabrolu,Prakasam District 5 Venkateswarlu S/o.Mutyala Reddy Ammanabrolu,Prakasam District 6 Lakshmana Reddy S/o.not Known Ammanabrolu,Prakasam District 7 Pattapu Somaiah S/o.Not known Ammanabrolu,Prakasam District 8 Sesha Reddy S/o Not Known, R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 9 Krishna Reddy, S/o Not Known, R/o Kanuparthi, Prakasam District 10 Krishna Reddy S/o Not Known, R/o Ammanobrolu, Prakasam District. 11 Palle Jayamma W/o Not known, R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 12 Ponnakuri Venkateswarlu S/o Not Known, R/o Bangari, Prakasam District 13 Chinnamgari Yedukondalu, S/o Not Known, R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 14 Ramachandra Reddy S/o Not Known R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 15 Musala Reddy S/o Not Known, R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 16 Mutyala Reddy S/o Not Known, R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 17 Koti Reddy S/o Not Known, R/o Kukkalavaripalem, Prakasam District. 18 Venkateswara Reddy S/o Not Known, R/o Kanaparthi Prakasam district. 19 Pulugu Swami Reddy S/o Not Known R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 20 Nageswara Reddy S/o Not Known, R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 21 Pattapu Ramulu S/o.not Known R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 22 Velidi Koteswara Rao S/o.not Known Agraharam,Prakasam District 23 Subba Reddy S/o.not Known Adiveedhipalem,Prakasam District 24 Geratalu S/o.not Known R/o Ammanabrolu, Prakasam District. 25 Subba Reddy S/o.not Known Kanuparthi,Prakasam District 26 Meda Varadarajulu S/o.not Known Kanuparthi,Prakasam District 27 Pedanana S/o.not known Kanuparthi,Prakasam District 28 Kukkala Koti Reddy S/o.not known Kukkalavaripalem Prakasam District 29 Seshaiah S/o.not Knwon Uppara Colony,Prakasam District 30 Venkatravu, S/o.not Knwon Uppara Colony,Prakasam District 31 Nageswara Reddy S/o.not known Kanuparthi,Prakasam District 32 Palapatla Narayanaswamy Reddy S/o.not known Adiveedhipalem,Prakasam District 33 Suriboina Koti Reddy S/o.not known Adiveedhipalem,Prakasam District 34 Yanadireddy S/o.not Known Kanuparthi,Prakasam District (All are belongs to Nagulapalli(M) .....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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1to 3 in not taking further steps in pursuance of the proceedings of the 1st respondent Rc No.T/GMC/07 dt.24-04-2007 in restoring back the possession of the petitioners situated in Ammanabroulu and Kanupathy(V) of Naguluppalapadu(M) Prakasam District as illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of Article 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1to 3 forthwith take steps for restoring possession to the petitioner by duly evicting the encroachers as mentioned in the annexure in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 16634 of 2008 ORDER: 1. The petitioners claim that they belong to S.T. Yanadi community and that each of them were assigned Ac.2.00 of land in Ammanabrolu and Kanuparthy villages of Naguluppalapadu Mandal in Prakasam District in the year 1970. They state that in total an extent of Ac.300-00 was assigned to about 150 S.T. families and since then they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, and that they were also given DKT pattas. The petitioners further state that lift irrigation scheme was sanctioned under Indira Prabha Scheme. Considering the potentiality of their lands, the unofficial respondents and others with the help of local politicians encroached upon their lands and on the representation made by them the first respondent namely the District Collector, Prakasam District directed the third respondent namely Tahasildar Naguluppalapadu Mandal vide proceedings dated 24.04.2007 to take appropriate action under Act 9 of 1977 Assigned Lands (Prohibition) Act for removal of the encroachments and for restoration of possession. Despite the said proceedings of the first respondent it is the case of the petitioners that no action for removal of the encroachment and restoration of the possession of the land in question assigned to them has been made by the respondents. Hence this Writ Petition. 2. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, the third respondent filed counter affidavit stating that there is no recorded evidence to show that about Ac.300-00 of land was allotted to 150 families of S.T. Yanadi community. He admitted that some petitioners numbering 21 were assigned different extents of land ranging from Ac.0-92 guntas to Ac.2.21 guntas. The said lands were brought under lift irrigation scheme. Most of the assignees have sold the lands assigned to them for consideration prior to the introduction of the irrigation scheme. He submitted that pursuant to the proceedings of the first respondent, he issued notices to the assignees as well as the alleged encroachers on 02.05.2007 in Forms I and II under Rule 3 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules 1977 and thereafter resumption orders dated 09.10.2007 were passed resuming the lands in favour of the Government. He further submitted that they are taking steps to restore the lands in favour of the assignees as per clause (b) (i) of Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) (Amendment) Act, 2007 and it will be completed in a couple of days. 3. Unofficial respondents filed counter stating that the petitioners were not assigned any lands, the petitioners were never in possession of the lands in dispute. The petitioners are residing in different villages and not the village where the land in question is situated and the unofficial respondents are in possession and cultivation. When the official respondents decided to grant DKT pattas to persons who are in possession and enjoyment of the land in question, the petitioners have resorted to file this Writ Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents. 5. Admittedly according to the official respondents some of the petitioners were assigned certain extents of lands. Both the petitioners as well as the unofficial respondents are claiming that they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The petitioners except stating that they were granted DKT pattas have not filed any material in support thereof. However, considering the fact that some of the petitioners were assigned lands, and having regard to the fact that the first respondent had already directed the third respondent vide proceedings dated 24.04.2007 to take appropriate action under Act 9 of 1977 Assigned Lands (Prohibition) Act for removal of the encroachments and for restoration of possession, instead of the third respondent taking appropriate action, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the first respondent himself conducts an enquiry into the matter. Hence I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions. 6. The first respondent District Collector shall conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter and ascertain as to how many persons were assigned lands and granted DKT pattas and as to who is in actual possession of the same. If any of the unofficial respondents or any other non assignees are found to be in possession, he shall take appropriate action for their eviction and restoration of possession to the original assignees. If the unofficial respondents are found to be in possession of lands, which were not assigned to any one, then he is at liberty to consider the request of the unofficial respondents for grant of pattas in respect of the land in their possession. Till such time status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. 7 With the above directions the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ------------------------- N.V.RAMANA, J. 03.11.2008 kvsn/KSR