IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20243 of 2005 Between: 1 Smt.Doddamma, W/o.Late D.Kesanna, R/o.Guntakal, Anantapur district. 2 Smt.Ramanjanamma, W/o.Late Gowrappa, R/o.Guntakal, Anantapur district. 3 D.Venkateswarlu, S/o.Late D.Kesanna, R/o.Guntakal, Anantapur district. 4 D.Raja, S/o.Late D.Kesanna, R/o.Guntakal, Anantapur district. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur district. 2 The Joint Collector, O/o.District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur district. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntakal Mandal, Guntakal, Anantapur district. 4 The District Manager, A.P.Housing Corporation, Anantapur. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. CH.GUNARANJAN FOR MR.C.KODANDA RAM Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT) Counsel for Respondent No.4: MR. K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their agricultural lands in Survey Nos.548-6, 548-7, 561-1, 501-1 and 561-2 admeasuring Acs.4.00, Acs.3.80 cents, Acs.3.87 cents, Acs.7.07 cents and Acs.3.50 cents respectively without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Heard Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assgnment) for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri K.Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the record. The petitioners claim that they were assigned with the lands mentioned above in all the survey numbers except Survey No. 501-1 as mentioned above. Their grievance is that the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the said lands and also the lands in Survey No.501-1, which are patta lands without following due process of law. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4. Respondent No.3, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District, who deposed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, inter alia stated that the lands in the above mentioned survey numbers except 501-1 were reserved for future purposes of general public of Guntakal town; that these lands were not assigned for agricultural purpose and that the petitioners are claiming rights over the said lands on the basis of fabricated documents. The answering respondent further stated that while the petitioners have no right whatsoever over the said lands, the respondents have not been interfering with the possession of the petitioners nor are they interested in taking over the private lands in Survey No.501-1. It is further stated that the lands in Survey Nos.548 and 561 are assigned to the houseless poor persons on 18.08.2005. In the counter-affidavit filed by the District Manager of respondent No.4 Corporation, it is stated that the Corporation is proposing to construct houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa over the land admeasuring Acs.9.40 cents in Survey No.558, which was not assigned to any person and even according to the petitioners, they are not connected with the land in the said survey number. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the assignments claimed to have been made in favour of the petitioners are bogus, is not correct. He further submitted that without admitting that the petitioners are asserting their rights under fabricated documents, the respondents cannot dispossess them without following due process of law. Though counter-affidavit was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 as far back as 29.10.2005, no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners contraverting any of the allegations contained in the counter-affidavit. The petitioners have not filed original pattas. They merely filed some almost illegible documents in vernacular language purported to be the copies of D-Form pattas. On the basis of such documents and in the absence of denial of serious accusation of fabrication of pattas, it is not possible for this Court to give a finding in favour of the petitioners that the pattas are genuine. If the petitioners assert their rights on the purported D-Form pattas, in the face of the serious allegation made by the respondents that they are fabricated, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach competent civil Court and establish their claim that the pattas granted in their favour are genuine and not fabricated. In such an event, they can be granted appropriate relief by the civil Court. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the petitioners are found to be in possession on the basis of the fabricated documents, they are entitled to be protected from the unlawful dispossession by the respondents, I am not inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsel. The jurisdiction of this Court is essentially equitable in nature and this Court would not extend any help to the persons, who are accused of fabricating documents. A writ is not a matter of right and its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the Court. (See Raishivendra Bahadur Dr. v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College, Bihar Sharif[1]; Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M.Shah Deputy Ccustodian cum Managing Officer, Bombay[2]; Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar[3]; The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. V. Sipahi Singh and others[4]). If the petitioners establish their bona fides and pattas are proved to be genuine in an appropriate Court of law, they are entitled to be compensated for the loss suffered by them on account of the alleged illegal dispossession by the respondents. Since no efforts whatsoever have been made by the petitioners to repel the allegations of the respondents that they indulged in fabrication of the documents, I am not inclined to grant any protection to the petitioners with respect to their possession, more so, in the face of the averment contained in the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the lands in Survey Nos.548 and 561 are already assigned to the houseless poor persons on 18.08.2005, which averment also stood unrebutted. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Before parting with this case, it is made clear that the observations made with respect to the nature of the pattas would not prejudice the case of the petitioners in case they file appropriate proceedings before the competent Court of law to establish the genuineness of the assignments allegedly made in their favour. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 14.09.2005 is vacated and WPMP.No.25764 of 2005 is dismissed. WVMP.No.3287 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th June, 2008. kvni [1] AIR 1962 SC 1210 [2] AIR 1966 SC 334 [3] (1973) 1 SCC 485 [4] (1977) 4 SCC 145