IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17148 of 2006 Between: Ganti Venkata Subrahmanya Somayajulu … Petitioner And Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority Rep., by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Visakhapatnam & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.C.D. Sekhar for Sri P. Venugopal Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt. V. Preethi Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17148 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in wrongly showing the land covered by Sy.No.59/4D of Yendada Village, Chinagadila Mandal, Visakhapatnam as the surplus land covered by Sy.No.59/4A, B & C belonging to respondent Nos.4 and 5 and also the action of respondent No.1 in high handedly demolishing the fence raised by the petitioner in Sy.No.59/4D, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.0.27 cents or 1307 square yards or 1092 square meters covered by Sy.No.59/4D of Yendada Village. The petitioner holds a registered Agreement of Sale and GPA in respect of the abovementioned land situated in Sy.No.59/4D. It is alleged that respondent Nos.4 and 5 were the owners of the land in Sy.No.59/4A, B and C and that a part of the said land was declared as surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, “the Act”). The grievance of the petitioner is that instead of taking possession of the said land, respondent No.1 sought to interfere with his possession over the abovementioned land in Sy.No.59/4D and that when a fence was sought to be made by him, the same was high handedly removed by the officials of respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that the possession of land in Sy.No.59/4D of Yendada Village was handed over by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 22.02.1993 and that in order to safeguard the said land, the officials of respondent No.1 have been inspecting the sites etc. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that after completing all formalities, the surplus extent of 1211 square meters in Sy.No.59/4A was taken over by respondent No.2 and the same was handed over to respondent No.1 on 08.01.1992. It is further stated that the petitioner appeared to have acquired interest over the land subsequent to the delivery of the said surplus land to respondent No.1. From the averments contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2, it is clearly evident that what was declared as surplus and taken possession was the land in Sy.No.59/4A admeasuring 1211 square meters. There is, however, discrepancy with respect to the date of handing over the land between the two counters. The same, however, has no material bearing on the present case. The fact remains that the surplus land is situated in Sy.No.59/4A and it is not the pleaded case of the respondents that any part of the land in Sy.No.59/4D, over which the petitioner is making claim, is declared as surplus or sought to be taken possession. This being the case, the plea of respondent No.1 that the land in Sy.No.59/4D was taken possession cannot be countenanced. This stand is in conflict with the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2. If respondent No.1 has taken possession of the land in Sy.No.59/4D, such an action cannot be approved in law. Accordingly, the respondents are restrained from exercising any rights over the land in Sy.No.59/4D. They shall, however, be free to exercise their rights over the surplus land comprised in Sy.No.59/4A. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 05.08.2010. ES