THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.1224 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner feels aggrieved by the notice dated 05-01-2010, issued by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the 1st respondent herein. Through the said notice, the 1st respondent stated that the petitioner has occupied the Grampanchayat Office, unauthorisedly, and required him to vacate the same, on or before 14-01-2010. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.17/1633 & 1633- A, of Havalagi Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Ananthapur District. It is stated that, in the open place abutting the house, he constructed rooms and gave them on lease. He has traced the history to the origin of his ownership and ultimately pleaded that the premises do not belong to Grampanchayat, at all. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government for Panchayat Raj, and learned Standing Counsel for Grampanchayat. The petitioner claims to be a senior citizen of the village. In the affidavit filed by him, he has mentioned the facts, relating to his ownership and the notice impugned in the writ petition. During the course of hearing, it emerged that the petitioner filed O.S.No.63 of 1990, in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda, against certain private individuals, as well as the Grampanchayat, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of these very premises. The trial Court dismissed the suit, through judgment dated 12-03-1998. The petitioner filed A.S.No.72 of 1998 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court, Anantapur. The appeal was dismissed on 26-03-2002. Second Appeal 480 of 2002, filed by him, was pending, and no interim orders were passed therein. The petitioner ought to have referred to these proceedings in the affidavit filed in the writ petition. By suppressing those facts, he made an attempt to mislead this Court. Once the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and other ancillary reliefs, in respect of the very premises, and was not successful therein, he cannot claim any right over the property. In fairness to the petitioner, the respondents issued a notice. This Court does not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned notice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It shall be open to the 1st respondent to resume possession of the premises, forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-02-2010. KO