IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 28111 of 2007 Between: 1 Maramreddy Obul Reddy S/o. M.Chenchurami Reddy R/o.Papireddypalem , T.P.Gudur Mandal Nellore District 2 Maramreddy Kondarami Reddy S/o. M.Chenchurami Reddy R/o.Papireddypalem , T.P.Gudur Mandal Nellore District 3 Maramreddy Vijay Kumar Reddy S/o.M.Radhakrishna Reddy R/o.Papireddypalem , T.P.Gudur Mandal Nellore District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by District Collector Nellore. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore 3 The Tahsildar, T.P.Gudur Mandal Nellore District. 4 The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, Nellore District. 5 The Station House officer, T.P.Gudur Police station T.P.Gudur Mandal, Nellore District ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents 4 and 5 in not implementing the proceedings of the 1st respondent passed in RCO.E3/5209/2007 dated 28.10.2007 as illegal, and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to provide protection to the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.4&5: GP for Home The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners are questioning the action of respondents 4 and 5 in not implementing the proceedings dated 28.10.2007 of the 1st respondent – District Collector. Petitioners claim to be the owners of the land in Sy.Nos.1,2,3,6 and 57 to 73 of Thotapalli Villge, Thotapalli, Gudur Mandal, Nellore District. They filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal as envisaged under the provisions of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1971 and surrendered the excess land to the Government and the retainable extents of the land in the survey numbers mentioned above are in their possession and enjoyment. While so, since the workers of the CPI (M) party have tried to occupy the lands and threatening the petitioners, they made a representation to the District Collector to provide police protection from the workers of the CPI (M) Party. The District Collector after causing an enquiry with regard to the title to the property and the entitlement of the petitioners has passed orders on 28.10.2007 holding that since no one has claimed the lands in S.No.58 to an extent of Ac.38.25 cents, S.No.60 to an extent of Ac.2.39 cents, S.No.61 to an extent of Ac.1.38 cents, the claim of the petitioners can be considered and directed the petitioners to take the assistance of the Station House Officer in removing the encroachments. By the said orders, the 1st respondent has also directed the authorities to again verify basing on the records available as to whether the said lands are Government lands and if so, to remove the encroachments. Basing on the above said orders, the petitioners made representations on 11.2.2007 to respondents 4 and 5 to take necessary action in the matter, in vein. Hence this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleaders for Revenue and Home and perused the material available on record. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 28.12.2007 and notice was issued to the respondents. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Home produced before this Court a copy of the letter dated 27.12.2007 of the Tahsildar, TP Gudur addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police, Nellore (Rural) which reads as under; “ I have verified the village revenue records concerned to know whether the individuals who were in occupation of the lands in S.No.1 to 73 of Thotapalli Village are by way of encroachment of Government lands or by way of legal possession. No inam case files are now pending disposal either at my level or at the level of Divisional or Appellate authorities. The lands under possession are patta lands as per village records viz., 10(1), 1(B) of ROR Act. All these lands registered as patta lands and each Ryot is having possession over the lands held by them. Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds were also issued to the Pattadars on conclusion of ROR operations by then Mandal Revenue Officer viz., Sri Ch.Penchala Reddy…….. None of the lands was notified u/s 2(A) of the Act to classify them either as AW or Poramboke as the case may be. All these lands are under effective cultivation by the Ryots.” The 5th respondent – Sub Inspector of Police, TP Gudur Police Station has filed a counter affidavit. Paras 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit read as under; “4. It is respectfully submitted that prima facie the case of the petitioner is civil in nature and hence no action was initiated on the complaint dated 11.12.2007. I submit that the Collector, Nellore did not specifically direct the respondent police to take necessary action and directed the revenue officials to remove the encroachments. So far the revenue officials did not approach this respondent police seeking police protection for removal of the encroachments in the lands in Sy.Nos.1,2,3,6 and 57 to 73 of Totapalli Village of TP Gudur Mandal. I submit that when the lands belong to the petitioner are the inam lands as per the letter of the Tahsildar, TP Gudur Mandal, it is very difficult for the police to provide police protection to the petitioners. 5. It is pertinent to mention that in the enquiry it was found that the A.P.Land Reforms Tribunal has accepted and declared that the lands computed by the petitioners were declared as patta lands and also directed to surrender the surplus land. Then the surplus land was surrendered to the Government. The CPM party members are claiming that the land surrendered by the petitioners is still under his possession. It is for the Revenue Department to survey the land and demarcate the land in possession of the petitioner and the Government Land.” Though the 5th respondent stated that it is for the Revenue Department to survey and demarcate the land in possession of the petitioners and the Government, in view of the above said clarification issued by the Tahsildar, it is appropriate to direct the 5th respondent to take action on the basis of the report submitted by the Tahsildar. If the 5th respondent needs any clarification with regard to the survey numbers or the extents of lands or demarcation, he can take the assistance of the Tahsildar. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT: 13.3.2008 msv