THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.16651 of 2009 DT.16.12.2010 Between: V.Venkata Siva Rama Prasad … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the District Collector, Vizianagaram District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : Smt.A.Padma The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s possession in respect of plot No.586 of Rajeev Nagar, Vizianagaram, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the said plot. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Smt.Akella Padma, learned counsel for respondent No.3. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that when he was working as News Contributor, respondent No.2 has granted a house site patta in respect of 70 sq.yards of land in Town Survey No.568 of Vizianagaram Twon, vide patta No.586, dated 20.06.1994. The petitioner further averred that he raised a hut over the said site and lived therein till 2003, that the said hut has collapsed due to heavy rains and when he intended to construct a pucca house, he could not do so due to paucity of funds. The petitioner alleged that in the month of November, 2008 some individuals have tried to interfere with his possession and he could resist the said attempt, but during the second week of July, 2009, respondent No.5 (obviously referable to respondent No.3) along with some individuals have tried to interfere with his possession and that when he approached respondent No.2, he did not take any action in this regard. The petitioner also alleged that respondent No.2 is orally stating that an assignment patta was granted in favour of respondent No.3, but he refused to give a copy of the same. In the separate counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, it has been averred that as the petitioner failed to construct a house within six months, as per the patta conditions, respondent No.3 has been granted the patta on 27.07.2006. It is not the pleaded case of the respondents that the patta granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. If the petitioner has violated the conditions of patta, the same is liable for cancellation. So long as the patta is not cancelled, neither of respondent Nos.2 and 3 can interfere with the possession of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject plot, so long as the patta granted in his favour continues to subsist. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.2 from initiating appropriate action for cancellation of patta held by the petitioner, if he is satisfied that the petitioner has violated the conditions of patta. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 12.08.2009, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.21865 of 2009, stands vacated and W.P.M.P.No.21865 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.Nos.3621 of 2009 and 5199 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date:16.12.2010 VGB