IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 20730 of 2001 Between: 1 Guvvala Ella Reddy, S/o. Late Guvvala Chinna Ella Reddy, Vengannagaripalli Village, H/o. Machennapalli, Chapadu Mandal, Cuddapah District. 2 Guvvala Rama Subba Reddy, S/o. Late Guvvala Patnama Reddy, Vengannagaripalli Village, H/o. Machennapalli, Chapadu Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Cuddapah. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Cuddapah District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Duvvur, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction particularly writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of S.No.409/2A an extent of 1 acre 60 cents and S.No.409/3 A an extent of 1 acre 85 cents of Machennapalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Cuddapah District holding that the notice in Ref.B/234/2001 dt. 8.8.2001 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and the proceedings of resumption for the said land as null and void. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.20730 OF 2001 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.60 cents and Ac.1.85 cents of agricultural land situated in Sy.No.409/2A and 409/3A respectively of Machennapalli Village, Duvvur Mandal, Kadapa District as rightful owners having purchased the same under a Registered Sale Deed, dated 24.09.1979. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the actioin of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duvvur, in prohibitng the petitioners from entering the said land alleging that it is Government assessed waste land. It is contended by the petitioners that the plea of the respondents that the land in question is a Government assessed waste land is absolutely false and that being the rightful owners they cannot be prohibited from entering the said land. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it stated that the land in question is the Government land., and that the same was originally assigned in favour of one Naganna and his wife Sanjamma and since they sold away the assigned land in violation of the conditions of assignement, the land was resumed vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 20.2.1994 following the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. The claim of the petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land from the date of their purchase on 24.9.1979 has also been denied. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. In view of the rival claims made by the parties, though this Court cannot record any findings as such as to the title in respect of the land in question, the impugned notice dated 8.8.2001 itself shows that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question. If that be so, even assuming that they are in unauthorized occupation, they cannot be evicted without following due process of law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit their explanation/representation before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Duvvur, Kadapa District in response to the impugned notice dated 8.8.2001 along with supporting documents if any to substantiate their title within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is made the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question shall not be disturbed. It is made clear that this Court shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion as to the title claimed by the petitioners and it is for the 2nd respondent to make an independent enquiry and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.12.2008 gbs