IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 966 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/05/2001 in WP NO : 8208 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Padala Venkata Ratnam W/o padala Suri Reddy R/o Pentapadu village & Mandal West Godavari Dist. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The MRO Tadepalli Gudem W.Godavari Dist. 2 The Dist Collector W.Godavari Dist Eluru 3 The Secretary Agricultural Market Committee Tadepalli Gudem(Rural) W.Godavari Dist. 4 The Station House Officer Tadepalli Gudem W.Godavari Dist (Rural Police Station) .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A.No.966 of 2001 ORDER: (per HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) This writ appeal is filed against the order in W.P.No.8208 of 2000 dated 25.4.2001. The writ petition was filed by the appellant herein seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in interfering with her cultivating activities in the land admeasuring Ac.1-00 cents situated in Sy.No.245/3 of Tadepalligudem as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 29.6.1993 and for a consequential direction against the 3rd and 4th respondents not to interfere with the cultivating activities of the petitioner. The case of the appellant is that the above mentioned land forms part of land admeasuring Ac.5-18 cents situated in Sy.Nos.245/3, 246/3 and 73/2 of Tadepalligudem which she purchased in a Court auction in EA.No.801/80 in O.S.No.76/75 on the file of the Sub-Court, Eluru being the highest bidder which was confirmed in her favour for Rs.2,64,000/-. The grievance of the appellant was that the 3rd respondent was trying to interfere with her possession of the land in an extent of Ac.1-00 cents on the pretext of constructing a compound wall on the ground that the Agricultural Market Committee had purchased the said land from the Government in the year 1992 and thus started encroaching upon her land. It is also her grievance that on the complaint of the 3rd respondent, the police have directed her not to cultivate the land, even though she submitted all the relevant papers. The letter of the District Collector, West Godavari District dated 29.6.1993 which is filed along with the material papers annexed to the writ appeal goes to show that the District Collector also directed the Agricultural Market Committee not to proceed with the construction of the compound wall till the issue is finally settled about the ownership of the land in R.S.No.245/3 of Padala Village of Tadepalligudem Mandal. According to the appellant, ignoring the said direction also, the Agricultural Market Committee has been trying to interfere with her possession. Hence the writ petition had been filed. The main contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant before us is that directing the appellant to approach the civil court, as held by the Learned Single Judge, is not warranted in view of the fact that the appellant had purchased the property in a court auction and even then if the respondents desire to dispossess the appellant, they cannot do so without following the due process of law. On the other hand, Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Agricultural Market Committee has sought to support the action of the Agricultural Market Committee on the ground that the they had purchased the land in question from the revenue authorities, a request had been made to the District Collector to alienate the said land in their favour, accordingly the land was alienated in their favour and therefore the action of the respondents is not illegal. In view of the fact that the appellant herein has purchased the land in question in a court auction and the 3rd respondent – Agricultural Market Committee is trying to interfere with the possession of the appellant even ignoring the letter of the District collector dated 29.6.1993 directing the 3rd respondent not to go ahead with construction of compound wall in the said land, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be disposed without following due process of law. Accordingly, the order of the Learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date:21-07-2008 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J ASP/GS