HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5020 of 2008 Date : 30.09.2011 Between : P. Karunakar & another. …..Petitioners And The Joint Collector, Visakkhapatnam & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5020 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners over the land admeasuring Ac.2.50 cents, situated in Sy.No.331/5 of Madhurawada village of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of petitioners that they are owners of the aforesaid piece of land, having purchased the same from one Mr.M.Ramakrishna, pursuant to a registered sale deed, dated 03.07.2007. It is further alleged that originally one Mr.V.Laxmana Rao was the absolute owner of the total land admeasuring 10 acres covered by Sy.No.331/5 of Madhurawada village, as the said land was allotted to him vide proceedings in DR.No.749, dated 26.03.1970 under political sufferers’ quota. It is stated that as the original owner Mr.V.Laxmana Rao, having executed an agreement of sale in the name of Mr.M.Ramakrishna on 27.01.1989, has failed to execute the regular sale deed, the said Ramakrishna approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.1130 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. It is stated that the plaintiff Sri M.Ramakrishna has obtained an exparte decree in the aforesaid suit and got executed the sale deed in his favour by filing E.P.No.95 of 2006. It is the grievance of petitioners that though they have purchased the aforesaid piece of land from M.Ramakrishna, who has acquired title to the property and though they are in actual and physical possession of the same, the respondents herein are interfering and are trying to dispossess them from the land in question as otherwise than due process of law. It is the case of petitioners that even assuming that the land is claimed to be Government land, petitioners cannot be dispossessed as otherwise than due process of law. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. In the counter, while denying the allegations of petitioners, it is stated that the land admeasuring 10 acres in Sy.No.331/5 of Madhurawada village was not assigned to Sri V.Laxmana Rao, who is on the register of political sufferers maintained by the Collector, Visakhapatnam, for the following reasons : “i) As per G.O.Ms.No.1442/Revenue Department dt.14-9-1962 all the Political sufferers should submit their applications for grant of land before 31-10-1949. But in the D.R.filel No.749 available at Tahsildar’s Office, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, the application is not found and there is no mention about the application anywhere in the reports and check memos, therein, about the timely application by the Political Sufferer Sri V.Lakshmana Rao for grant of land. ii) In “A” Memorandum against Column 3 the name of the applicant Sri V.Lakshmana Rao is appeared in different ink compared with that of other entries. Against Column 7, the S.No. originally written as 330 and it was made as 331, extent also changed as Ac.171-33 cts to Ac.40-64 cts. iii) In the DR file the sketch of the proposed land indicating the field No.331 shown the boundaries as : North : S.No.331 South : S.No.336 East : S.No.332 West : S.No.331 But, in the A1 notice the boundaries for the proposed land for assignment shown as East, West, North and South as S.No.331 only. For the above reasons, it is concluded that, the D.R. file is not a genuine one for assigning land to Sri V.Lakshmana Rao, Political Sufferer.” In this writ petition, the petitioners, on the premise that they are put in possession of land in question pursuant to their purchase from one M.Ramakrishna, are seeking directions against the respondents not to interfere with their possession. Undisputedly, the aforesaid piece of land is part and parcel of 10 acres alleged to have been assigned to one V.Laxmana Rao. The vendor of petitioners, it appears, has obtained an exparte decree in the suit in O.S.No.1130 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, and on the said basis, he sold part of the land to the petitioners. When the very grant of assignment in favour of the original freedom fighter, namely, Sri V.Laxmana Rao is denied in the counter and as it is stated in the counter that the said piece of 10 acres of land was not assigned at all to the political sufferer Sri V.Laxmana Rao with whom the vendor of petitioners has entered into an agreement of sale and obtained exparte decree, the possession of petitioners cannot be accepted. In view of the serious factual disputes, this court cannot go into the same for grant of relief as prayed for in this writ petition. Though the petitioners claim that there are several proceedings which indicate and support the assignment in faovur of Sri V.Laxmana Rao the original assignee, in view of the stand of respondents in the counter that such assignment is not a genuine one, and in fact, no such assignment was made, unless the evidence is recorded, no finding can be given on the claim of petitioners. As much as the very grant of original assignment in favour of Sri V.Laxmana Rao is disputed, the possession of petitioners cannot be accepted for grant of relief as prayed for in this writ petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved, it is open for them to approach the common law Court and prove assignment in favour of the original assignee V.Laxmana Rao and obtain consequential orders, but in view of the stand of respondents disputing the assignment in favour of Sri V.Laxmana Rao, no direction can be granted as prayed for in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th September 2011 ajr