IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3718 of 2002 Between: M.A.Rawoof, S/o.Abdul Waheb, R/o.Narsapur , Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsapur , Medak District. 4 The Mandal Development Officer, Narasapur , Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner :MR M.RAMA KANTH FOR MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for the respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from Acs.0.14 gts in Survey No.58/1 of Narsapur Village, Medak District as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.1.20 gts and out of the said land, an extent of Acs.1.06 gts was acquired for construction of RTC Bus depot. The grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of the balance extent of Acs.0.14 gts, when he was making construction of a compound wall after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat on 05-09-1990, the respondents started interfering with the same. The petitioner stated that the respondents started taking measurements to lay a road across the land assigned to him. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, the allegation that the respondents entered into the petitioner’s land and took measurements to lay the road is denied. It is, however, averred that the petitioner is still in possession of Acs.0.14 gts, but without obtaining permission from the District Collector for conversion of agriculture land for non- agriculture purpose, the petitioner was trying to put the said land to commercial use and when he started constructing a compound wall, with a view to change the nature of the land, the subordinates of the respondents stopped such construction by the petitioner. The fact that the land was assigned to the petitioner for agriculture purpose is not denied. Therefore, so long as the petitioner uses the land for the said purpose, the respondents cannot interfere with his possession. However, if the petitioner seeks to put the property to use for a purpose other than for agriculture purpose, without proper permission from the competent authority, the respondents are entitled to prevent him from doing so, by following due process of law. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th September, 2008 vrn