IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 166 of 2008 Between: 1 Dandupati Anuradha W/o. Krishna, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal Srikakulam District. 2 Kakitapalli Adilaxmi W/o. Nooka Raju, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3 Talachandra Santhoshi W/o. Vijayananda Rao, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4 Tompala Sakunthala W/o. Vijayababu, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5 Ampili Prameela W/o. Tirupathi, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6 Sannayila Parvathi W/o. Simhachalam, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal. Srikakulam District. 7 Dandasi Vijaya Kumari W/o. Ramesh Kumar, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 8 Bodepu Pushpavathi W/o. Simhadrinaidu, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal. Srikakulam District. 9 Tirupathi Rupavathi W/o. Ranganadham, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal. Srikakulam District. 10 Ravalavalasa Mangamma W/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal. Srikakulam District. 11 Peddinti Vijaya Kumari W/o. Sanjeeva Rao, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 12 Rappala Tavitamma W/o. Apalanaidu, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal, Srikakulam District. 13 Tankala Suseela W/o. Simhachalam, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal. Srikakulam District. 14 Tankala Ammoji W/o. Madhava Rao, R/o. Kothuru (v) and Mandal. Srikakulam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Srikakulam district at Srikakulam. 3 The Tahsildar, Kothuru Mandal, Srikakulam district. 4 Project Director, District Rural Development Authority, Srikakulam 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 Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order, declaring the proposed action of the respondents herein in trying to evict the petitioners from their lawful possession by removing their thatched sheds situated in Lay out No.277-1, Block No.1 Plot Nos. 1,6, 14, 17, 21, 23, 27, 29, 32, 35, 39, 44, 49 and 50 belonging to the petitioners situated at Karlemma Village, Kothuru Mandal, Srikakulam district as illegal, arbitrary violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Art. 19(1)(2) and 21 of Constitution of India and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioners herein from their respective possession of thatched sheds situated at Karlemma village, Kothuru Mandal and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners submit that they have been assigned house site pattas bearing Plot Nos.1, 6, 14, 17, 21, 23, 27, 29, 32, 35, 39, 44, 49 and 50 in Layout No.277-1, Block No.1 situated at Karlemma Village, Kothuru Mandal, Srikakulam District and as per the assignment the house sites, they have erected sheds, hut and houses but they have not violated any of the terms and conditions of the patta or the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). They further submit that the third respondent without following due process of law is interfering with their possession and enjoyment of their properties on the ground that the said lands is required for the fourth respondent. 2. If the said house sites have not been made use of; if they are vacant and for violation of the terms and conditions of the house site pattas, it is always open for the respondents to cancel the assignment by giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners but without following due process of law the petitioners cannot be dispossessed. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the third respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J February 29, 2008 DSK