HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22541 of 2004 Date : 04.08.2009 Between : H. Srinivasulu. …..Petitioner And The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22541 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondent-Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kurnool, in not granting patta in favour of petitioner, for 8 cents of Hundrigadda Poramboke land in Survey No.193/4B, inspite of the resolution of the Municipal Council in Proceedings No.L.PER.No.8480/89-C3, dated 14.08.1989, as illegal and arbitrary and to further direct the respondent-Municipal Corporation not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said piece of land. 2. As stated in the affidavit, it is the case of the petitioner that they belong to Scheduled Caste and that since 1956, the late father of the petitioner was in occupation and enjoyment of 8 cents of Hundrigadda River Poramboke land situated in Survey No.193/4B of Kurnool town. It is stated that after the death of his father, the petitioner was in continuous possession of the said land and he was also granted temporary patta by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, in Proceedings B.No.11264/78, dated 6th of January 1979. It is submitted that though there was an earlier resolution, dated 14.08.1989, passed by the Municipal Council, recommending for grant of patta in favour of the late father of the petitioner, but now, the respondent-Commissioner is taking steps for dispossession of the petitioner without following due process of law. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Corporation. In the counter affidavit, while admitting that the Municipal Corporation has passed Resolution, recommending grant of patta in favour of the Late father of the petitioner, it is stated that during the inspection by the Town Planning Supervisor, it was found that one Thimmakka was found to be in possession and constructed a hut in the land in question, and as such, the said Town Planning Inspector asked Thimmakka to remove the hut. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Corporaton. 5. It is contended by Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, that since 1956, the Late father of petitioner was in possession of the land till he died in 1999, and thereafter, the petitioner is in possession. It is further submitted that the said Thimmakka is the paternal aunt of petitioner (sister of petitioner’s father Thimmanna), and as she is a widow, she is staying with them in the hut constructed over the land in question, and as such, it cannot be said that petitioner is not in possession of the said land. 6. So far as grant of patta is concerned, it appears that the petitioner has made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, and on the communication addressed by the said authority, the Municipality has passed resolution recommending grant of patta for the piece of land admeasuring 50 X 45 feet (0.05 cents) in Survey No.193/4B. It is further stated that the Town Planning Officer has addressed the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, to take further steps in the matter basing on the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, but so far, no action is taken by the said authority. 7. So far as grant of patta is concerned, it is a matter to be considered by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, based on the resolution passed by the Municipal Council. As it is stated that the matter is pending for ‘no objection certificate’ before the Mandal Revenue Officer, and as the said authority is not made party-respondent to this writ petition, no direction can be given to him for grant of patta. In any event, even for removal of encroachments, there is a procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act. Even upon a reading of the counter affidavit, it is clear that there are no such proceedings initiated for removal of the alleged encroachment. In such an event, the petitioner cannot be evicted without following due process of law. 8. In the absence of any steps for removal of encroachment, and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, he cannot be removed from the piece of land, which is claimed to be in possession of the petitioner’s family since 1956. More over, it is stated that the Municipal Corporation has already passed a resolution, recommending for grant of patta in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said piece of land without due process of law. 9. Subject to above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th August 2009 ajr