IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21420 of 2007 Between: Bhukya Ramchander S/o lte Tukaram, R/o 7-4-8, Medar Basti Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Special Deputy Collector, (Tribal Welfare0 Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Tahasildar, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 3 Revenue Inspector, Kothagudem. Khammam District. 4 Daravath Dharama S/o Ramdhan, R/o Chunchupally Village, Kothagudem mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate Writ or order or direction to the respondents more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 and 3 in taking steps to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac. 0-25 guntas in Sy.No. 116/3A situated at Chunchupally Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District, on the basis of the direction of 1st respondent in his order dt. 27.07.2007 in Case No. 120/2007/KGM, as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, in-violative of principles of natural justice and in-deprivation of the livelihood of the petitioner and as such in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.HARI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE FOR R1 TO R3, SRI M.RAJAMALLA REDDY FOR R4. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21420 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be in possession of Ac.0.25 gts. of land comprising Sy.No.116/3A and Ac.0.15 gts. comprising Sy.No.116/4A situated at Chunchupally village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District, having purchased the same from respondent No.4 under a sale deed, dated 12.02.2007. He presented the sale deed for registration, but the same is not aﬀected for want of veriﬁcation report from the District Collector. While so, the 3rd respondent-Revenue Inspector, Kothagudem, Khammam District, on the instructions of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Kothagudem, Khammam District, made attempts to dispossess the petitioner from Ac.0.25 gts. of land, pursuant to the orders said to have been passed in Case No.120/2007/KGM on the ﬁle of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is not a party to the said proceedings and, therefore, he cannot be dispossessed under the guise of the said orders. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered. Respondent No.4 entered appearance and filed counter. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Respondent No.4 ﬁled counter denying the sale of Ac.0.40 gts. in favour of the petitioner. He asserts that he is in possession of the land in dispute. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased Ac.40 gts. from respondent No.4 under a sale deed dated 12.12.2007 and the same is pending registration for want of Clearance Certiﬁcate from the District Collector. He further submits that any orders passed earlier, without impleading the petitioner as a party, cannot be made use of in dispossessing the petitioner from the lands in dispute. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 is already in possession of the property in question and therefore, the question of the petitioner being dispossessed from the said land does not arise. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner and respondent No.4 belong to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner claims that he purchased Ac.0.40 gts. of land from respondent No.4 and presented a sale deed for registration and the same is pending for want of Clearance Certiﬁcate from the District Collector and whereas respondent No.4 denied of his sale of Ac.0.40 gts. in favour of the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his title basing on the sale deed said to have been executed by respondent No.4. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the oﬃcial respondents are trying to dispossess him from the lands, without following the due process of law, and making use of the orders passed earlier in Case Nos.446/88/KGM and 120/2007/KGM. It is to be made clear that the petitioner is not a party to the earlier proceedings being Case Nos.446/88/KGM and 120/2007/KGM. So, any orders passed in the said cases cannot be used against the petitioner to dispossess him, in case he is in possession of the property. The oﬃcial respondents have to follow the due process of law, in case the petitioner is required to be dispossessed from the lands in dispute. In the event of any proceedings are initiated before the Revenue authorities or the Civil Court, the said authorities shall consider the claims of the parties uninﬂuenced by any of the observations made in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. No costs. _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 16.10.2008 v v