IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 17238 of 2008 Between: Rangala Ramu S/o Paidaiah r/o APpannapalem Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Tahsildar, Rambilli mandal, Visakhaptnam 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from his landed property of Ac. 01.50 cents covered by Sy. No. 57/1 of Vijayarampuram Agraharam Revenue Village of Rambelli Mandal without following due process of law and without there being any public purpose as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of article 14, 21 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and pass such other orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17238 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer “To issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in insisting the petitioner to vacate from his landed property of Ac. 01.50 cents covered by Sy. No. 57/1 of Vijayarampuram Agraharam Revenue Village of Rambelli Mandal without following due process of law and without there being any public purpose as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of article 14, 21 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land and pass such other orders or order.” Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition appearing for the respondents and having regard to the nature of the controversy involved, without expressing any opinion as to the entitlement of the petitioner in respect of the land in question, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said land without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 08-08-2008 KLP