THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 558 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from her plot No.B-20, comprised in S.No.126, admeasuring (223) Sq. yards, Ward No.8, Block No.2, Citizen Colony, situated at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Rangareddy District, within L.B. Nagar Municipal limits, as arbitrary and illegal. According to petitioner, she is the absolute owner and possessor of plot No.B-20, comprised in S.No.126, admeasuring (223) Sq. yards, Ward No.8, Block No.2, Citizen Colony, situated at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Rangareddy District, within L.B. Nagar Municipal limits. She purchased the said plot from the previous owners, namely, (1) Danne Mallappa s/o Late D. Durgaiah and (2) Danne Pentappa @ Prem Das s/o D. Mallappa under registered sale deed dated 9.4.1999 vide document No.2364/1999, registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Champapet. The vendors are true and legitimate owners of the land to an extent of Ac.2-29 guntas in S.Nos. 126, 127 Part, 131 Part and 132 out of Ac.5- 18 guntas situated at Karmanghat village, Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Petitioner purchased the subject property for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,11,500/-. Ownership of the vendors in respect of the land was confirmed as Protected Tenants by the revenue authorities. While that being so, the M.R.O., Saroornagar – respondent No.1, along with his staff, came to the plot of the petitioner on 17.1.2005 and told her to vacate the same, stating that her possession of the plot was unauthorized and that she had occupied Government land. Petitioner was further informed that she has to vacate the plot by 24.1.2005, otherwise, she would be dispossessed by use of force. According to petitioner, no notice of any kind was issued to her before making such an attempt nor any notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Encroachment Act or notice under the Urban Land Ceiling Act etc. was issued. Therefore, the action of 1st respondent in threatening to dispossess her is arbitrary and illegal. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the revenue officials have nothing to do with the subject land and there seems to be some private dispute between the protected tenants and the petitioner. Respondent No.1 never interfered with the possession of the petitioner nor disturbed her possession at any point of time. Under those circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, without following due process of law. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-12-2010. MVB.