IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 14891 of 2000 Between: Kodi Venkata Rao, S/o Ramaswamy, R/o Konithiwada (V), Veeravasaram (M), West godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Lokayukta of A.P., Hyderabad 2 Y.S. Raju, Gram Panchayat Committee, Konithiwada (V), Veeravasaram (M), West Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Eluru, West Godavari 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 will be pleased to to issue a Writ Order or Direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in directing the 3rd & 4th respondents to take possession of the lands situated at R.S.No.207/28 over an extent of Ac.3.00 of Konithiwada (V), Veeravasaram (M), W.G. Dist. which are in possession of the petitioner by passing an order in compliant No.1215/95/B1, dt: 29-6-2000, as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, against the provisions of Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, Act, 1983 and the rules made there under and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 3rd & 4th respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over an extent of Acs.3.00 in R.S.No.207/28 of Konithiwada (V), Veeravasaram (M), W.G. District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14891 of 2000 ORAL ORDER:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Swaroop Reddy) The writ petition is filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.06.2000 in complaint No.1215/1995/81 passed by the Lokayukta, wherein it was observed that in terms of the compromise decree of the Madras High Court dated 13.03.1934 in A.S.Nos.349 and 556 of 1931, the panchayat got the land in dispute, that it has been in possession of the same till a sale deed was taken by the petitioner from two persons viz. Laxmana Rao and Narsimha Rao, who do not have any right in the said property and, as such, the petitioner cannot have better right in the property. The Lokayukta further observed that since the property appears to be in the occupation of the petitioner in pursuance of the sale agreement or sale deed, the panchayat can get back the possession by taking recourse to a Court of law as it is a Government land and that the District Collector, Vizianagaram, and the concerned District Panchayat Officer were directed to take necessary action, in accordance with law, for resumption of the land in question, after following due process of law. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has purchased the property under the registered sale deed in the year 1991 and, as such he is the owner of the property and in his absence, the order was passed by the Lokayukta. Therefore, the same has to be set aside. As seen from the order of the Lokayukta, the District Collector, Vizianagaram, and the concerned District Panchayat Officer have to take necessary action for resumption of the land in question, thus holding that the petitioner is not the owner of the said land. Admittedly, the order was passed by the Lokayukta in the absence of the writ petitioner. As such, we make it clear that before taking any action, the District Collector, Vizianagaram and the District Panchayat Officer shall take steps for establishing their ownership of the land by taking appropriate legal proceedings and only thereafter, any action can be taken against the writ petitioner for evicting him and resuming the said land. The observation made by the Lokayukta that the writ petitioner has no right to the property shall not have any force unless the said fact is established in appropriate legal proceedings to which the petitioner shall be made a party. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. V.ESWARAIAH,J P.SWAROOP REDDY,J Dt:09.07.2009 usd