IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8981 of 1999 Between: 1 Reddi Pothu Raju, S/o. Simmanna, Totakurapalem Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Gavireddi Sanyasinaidu, S/o. Sanyasinaidu, Totakurapalem Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Reddy Satyam, S/o. Simmanna, Totakurapalem Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Reddi Srirama Murthy, S/o. Simmanna, Totakurapalem Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Ravikamatham, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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, order or direction more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Land Encroachment Act proceedings in respect of Ac.10.35 cents in Survey No. 42 of Totakurapalem Village, Ravikamatham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District of the erstwhile Vizianagaram Estate pending the application for grant of patta under Section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 as without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.8981 OF 1999 ORDER: The petitioner claims that he was in possession of the land on the notiﬁed date and since proceedings were initiated against him for eviction under the Land Encroachment Act, he had filed the present writ petition. The contention is that once a person is in possession of the land on the notiﬁed date he can be dispossessed only in accordance with Section 3 (d) of the Estates Abolition Act and the rules made thereunder and that no action can be taken against him under the Land Encroachment Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Nadella Narayana Prasada Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1]. A detailed counter is ﬁled by the M.R.O. disputing the petitioner’s contention that he was in possession of the land. Sri P.Sriraghuram, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would admit that the Settlement Oﬃcer had rejected the petitioner’s claim, aggrieved thereby he had preferred a revision to the Director of Settlements which was also rejected and that a further revision is pending before the Board of Revenue. Since the very question of the petitioner being in possession on the notiﬁed date is in dispute, and as this Court would not, ordinarily, adjudicate disputed questions of fact, I see no reason to hold on the basis of the self-serving statement of the petitioner that he was in possession on the notiﬁed date and the proceedings initiated against him under Land Encroachment Act is without jurisdiction. The judgment relied upon is of no assistance since, in the present case, the question as to whether the petitioner was in possession as on the notiﬁed date is itself in dispute. The relief sought for cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that the Board of Revenue, while considering the revision preferred by the petitioner, will not be inﬂuenced by any observations made in this order. No costs. ___________ 26-08-2008 GS [1] AIR 1972 AP 331