IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6454 of 2002 Between: J.Ram Reddy S/o. Late J.Chitta Reddy, R/o. H.No.1-10-309/A, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist. Collector, Hyderabad Dist., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, A.P. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue Office, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, A.P. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.PEDDA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6454 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare interference with or threat of demolition of house along with compound wall bearing Municipal No.1-10-309/A admeasuring 515 sq. yards in Sy.No.49 forming part of Sy.Nos.51, 50, 48, 52 and 66 of New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their subordinates as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri G.Peddababu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. 3. According to the petitioner, the aforementioned property belongs to the family of the petitioner and he succeeded to the said property from his father. The petitioner averred that the land in question was occupied by old well, which is in exclusive enjoyment of the petitioner’s family. The petitioner also averred that respondent No.2 inspected the said property, and apprehending that he is likely to be dispossessed from the land and the structures raised over the property may be demolished, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, it is inter alia averred that the land to an extent of 17 guntas in Sy.No.49 of Thokatta village in Trimulgherry Mandal, is classiﬁed as “Government Poramboke land”, that the petitioner illegally encroached the same by ﬁlling the well with mud and debris and raised two separate structures along with a compound wall thereon in the name and style “Sai Siri Constructions” during the year 1999 over an extent of 640 sq. yards. It is further stated that the petitioner ﬁled an application along with an aﬃdavit before respondent No.2 on 17.02.1999 stating that the property to an extent of 515 sq. yards fell to his share and he requested for grant of patta on payment of market value. Respondent No.2 further stated that while the petitioner is eligible for regularization of the land in question in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 read with G.O.Ms.No.972 as he raised structures only in the year 1999, the proposals were however submitted to the District Collector, Hyderabad District, for passing an appropriate order. He termed the plea of the petitioner that there is a threat of demolition as a mere apprehension without any basis. He stated that the subordinates of respondent No.2 visited the said land for inspection, but not with an intention to demolish the structures or dispossess the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so long as the petitioner’s application for regularization is not disposed of and action is initiated for the petitioner’s eviction by following the due process of law, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed. 6. In view of the stand taken by respondent No.2 in the counter aﬃdavit that his subordinates visited the land in question for inspection, but not with an intention to dispossess the petitioner or demolish the structures, the plea of the petitioner that he is likely to be dispossessed is without any basis. Since the petitioner’s application for regularization is pending, the respondents are directed to dispose of the same by passing appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is needless to state that till then, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. 7. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 14.10.2008 v v