IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11215 of 2008 Between: S. Khadar Valli S/o. Gulam Ali R/o. Near Jamia Mosque, Agartha Street, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., Rept. by the District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle, Chittoor. 4 S. Gangappa S/o. S. Mallappa R/o. Diguva Harijanawada, H/o. Valasapalle, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 to 3 in dispossessing the petitioner from Sy.No.101/1, in an extent of Ac.4.11 Cent of valasapalli Revenue Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District without following the procedure laid down by law as illegal, arbitrary and unconstiutional and consequently restrain the respondents 1 to 3 from dispossessing the writ petitioner from Sy.No.101/1, in an extent of Ac.4.11 Cent of valasapalli Revenue Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Chittoor District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11215 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be an assignee of Ac.4.11 cents of land in Sy.No.101/1 of Valasapally revenue village, Madanapalle mandal, Chittoor District. His grievance is that the respondents 2 and 3 are trying to dispossess him at the instance of the 4th respondent and seeks necessary directions to protect his interest. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. The fact that the petitioner is an assignee of the land referred to above is admitted by the respondents, as is evident from the notice dated 27.05.2008. It is, however, stated that the land was initially assigned to the 4th respondent, and even while the same was in force, the petitioner was assigned the land. The 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent alleging that the assignments are contrary to law and that none of them are residing in the village. While the notice is said to have been served upon the 4th respondent, it is stated that it is yet to be served upon the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the 3rd respondent has initiated action under the relevant provisions of law, the apprehension of the petitioner that he would be dispossessed from the land without initiation of any proceedings cannot be treated as proper. Now that the third respondent has issued a notice, further steps vis-à-vis to the land can be taken after final orders are passed in pursuance of the notice dated 27.05.2008. Till conclusion of the said proceedings, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date:28.05.2008 Ccm/nsr