IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6832 of 2002 Between: 1 Ahmed Bee W/o. Late Mohd. Jahangir R/o. 8-2-364, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyd. 2 Mohd. Shakir W/o.L ate Mohd. Jahangir R/o. 8-2-367/2/1, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyd. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.Dist. 2 Deputy Collector, (Land Protection Cell), Office of the Collectorate, R.R.Dist. at Khairtabart, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector, R.R.Dist. at Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6832 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and forbear from demolishing the house and compound wall of premises bearing No.6-4-5/1 admeasuring 1,560 sq. yards forming part of Sy.No.50, Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without following due process of law. 2. The grievance of the petitioners as projected in their aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition is that when they were carrying out some repair work to the 30 year old compound wall existing around the aforesaid premises admeasuring 1,560 sq. yards, the subordinates of respondent No.2 came to the premises on 10.04.2002 and threatened to demolish the same. With the said plea, they ﬁled the present writ petition for the relief as mentioned supra. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, he denied the claim of the petitioners that the compound wall was in existence for more than 30 years. He averred that the petitioners illegally occupied a part of National Highway No.7 and constructed a compound wall, despite being warned several times, that on 11.04.2002, the Revenue authorities demolished the compound wall illegally raised by the petitioners, but after obtaining orders from this Court on 12.04.2002, they have once again reconstructed the compound wall. 4. The question whether the petitioners raised a compound wall within their premises or not, being a disputed question of fact, cannot be gone into in this writ petition. If the petitioners occupied a part of the Government land forming part of National Highway, the respondents are entitled to take steps to remove the same in accordance with law. To obviate further litigation, I ﬁnd it appropriate to direct the respondents to get the survey conducted and land measured after notice to the petitioners. If, on the basis of the survey report, it is found that the petitioners have encroached into the Government land, the respondents shall serve notice on the petitioners before taking steps to demolish the compound wall or any other structure raised on the land belonging to the Government. 5. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.3353 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 14.10.2008 v v