IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24973 of 2008 Between: Smt.Ch.Jaya Suhasini W/o.Ch.Srinivasulu R/o. Plot No.162, (D.No.6-33/2) Paradesipalem, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, Nampally, Hyderabad 5 The Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Visakhapatnam. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner by demolishing the petitioner's house bearing D.No. 6-33/2, Marikavalasa, Paradesipalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without issuing notice is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to refrain from dispossessing the petitioner from the above mentioned house and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.JAYASURYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 24973 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was assigned plot No.162 admeasuring 60 square yards in survey No.168/P of Paradesipalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, for construction of a house. In February, 2005, the third respondent issued notice to her to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled for not making any constructions on the plot. Alleging that the third respondent is not accepting explanation submitted by the petitioner and others, ten persons including the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4933 of 2005. This Court disposed of the said writ petition on 14.03.2005 directing the third respondent to accept and consider explanation and also ordered that the petitioners therein shall not be dispossessed from the land. Thereafter, the petitioner along with others submitted explanation on 21.03.2005. The matter is statedly pending before the third respondent. The petitioner alleges that even though the third respondent has not passed any orders cancelling the assignment of house site patta, the respondents-revenue officials are trying to dispossess her with a view to handover the patta lands to Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Apprehending that she might be dispossessed from the land, she filed the instant Writ Petition. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the matter is still pending before the third respondent and therefore, the order passed by this Court on 14.03.2005 directing the third respondent to consider the explanation and also directing that the petitioner and others not to be dispossessed, shall remain in force. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is misconceived. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the higher authorities and produce a copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4933 of 2005 as well as this order. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.11.2008 GJ