IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3290 of 2008 Between: Bhukya Somla Naik S/o. Laxma Naik R/o. H.No.8-54, lalbhadur Road Madhira, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Khammam, Khammam District. 4 The Tahasildhar, Madhira Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Dhiravath Samba, S/o. Megya R/o. Plot No.29, Banjara Colony, Madhira, Madhira Mandal, Khammam 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 to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 for not implementing the orders passed in W.P. No.10160 of 2000 dated 21.01.2002 of this Hon'ble High Court in respect of the petitioner's plot No.28 an extent of 5 [five] cents situated at Madira Village and Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to implement the orders passed in W.P.No.10160 of 2000 dated 21.01.2002 of the Hon'ble Hight Court in respect of the petitioner's plot No.28 an extent of 5 [five] cents situated at Madira Village and Mandal, Khammam District and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.VENKATASATYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.3290 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.0-05 cents in Plot No.28 situated at Madira Village and Mandal, Khammam District. Similarly, the 5th respondent was also assigned the land admeasuring Ac.0-05 cents in Plot No.5, but he sold away the said plot and purchased Plot No.29, which is adjacent to the plot of the petitioner. The 5th respondent encroached upon the plot of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner made a representation before the 4th respondent, who in turn issued Memo, dated 18-02-2000, in Rc.No.A2-158/90, directing the 5th respondent to handover possession of Plot No.28 to the petitioner herein. Questioning the said Memo, dated 18-02-2000, the 5th respondent filed W.P.No.10160 of 2000 before this Court and this Court through order, dated 21-10-2002, dismissed the said writ petition observing that the 4th respondent was justified in directing the 5th respondent herein to handover possession of Plot No.28 to the petitioner herein and if the 5th respondent does not comply with the same, the 4th respondent is not precluded from taking such action to restore the house site in favour of the petitioner herein. It is further stated that after dismissal of the said writ petition, the petitioner made a representation before the 4th respondent about the illegal encroachment of the 5th respondent, but he has not taken any steps to dispossess the 5th respondent from Plot No.28. Admittedly, there is no proof of filing such representation before the 4th respondent. Therefore, in the absence of any such representation requesting the 4th respondent to implement his own order, I am of the opinion that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued. However, merely because the writ petition filed by the 5th respondent is dismissed without giving any relief in his favour, it cannot be said that the petitioner got a relief in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to make representation before the Authorities concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 19-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}