HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10269 of 2009 Date : 09.06.2011 Between : Smt. Shaik Bharath Bibi. …..Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Peda Gantyada Mandal & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10269 of 2009 ORDER: Though interlocutory applications are listed for hearing, at the request of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of. This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in attempting to demolish the structures and to forcibly dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Ac.5.32 cents in Sy.No.198/1 and another extent of Ac.2.34 cents in Sy.No.198/2, totalling Ac.7.66 cents, situated in Nadupur village of Peda Gantyada Mandal in Visakhapatnam District, without issuing any notice and inquiry, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess her from the said property without following due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner that their family is in possession of the land admeasuring Ac.5.32 cents in Sy.No.198/1 and Ac.2.34 cents in Sy.No.198/2, situated at Nadupur village of Peda Gantyada Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. It is her grievance that though they are in long-standing possession of the aforesaid land, respondents are taking steps for her eviction and for demolition of structures existing therein, without following due process of law. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, it is stated that the land in Sy.No.198 has two sub-divisions. Survey No.198/1 admeasuring Ac.5.32 cents, is classified as Government “gayalu” land and the land in Sy.No.198/2 which is in an extent of Ac.2.34 cents is a private patta land belonging to the petitioner’s family. It is stated that the petitioner has made encroachment into the Government land in Sy.No.198/1 in recent times, as such, such encroachment will not confer any title on her. Respondents have also denied that they are interfering with the possession of petitioner and it is stated that the writ petition is filed by making false averments. As it is stated in the counter affidavit that the respondents are not interfering with the possession of petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of petitioner over the land in Sy.Nos.198/1 and 198/2, but at the same time, it is made clear that if the petitioner has encroached into any portion of land covered by Sy.No.198, which is classified as Government “gayalu” land, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking steps for eviction in accordance with law. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th June 2011 ajr