IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12366 of 2008 Between: Vipparathi Satyanarayana S/o mahalakshmi R/o Pasarlapudi badava, mamidikuduru Mandal, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District at kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, E.G. District. 3 The Tahsildar, mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 the Village Revenue Officer, Pasarlapudi Badava, Mamidikuduru Mandal, E.G. District. 5 Upper Prabhakar Rao S/o Ramakrishna 6 Pothumudi Rajaratnam S/o Veeranna 7 Pothumudi Hema Sundaram S/o Nookalu 8 Pothumudi Suryanarayana S/o Nookalu 9 Chilakapati Bheemarao S/o Marrabai 10 Moka Baburao S/o Veeranna Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are R/o Pasarlapudi Badava village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari 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 issue an appropriate Writ, order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring ac. 0-50 cents in Sy. No. 431/24, Ac. 0-50 cents in Sy.No. 429/5 of Pasarlapudi Badava Village, Mamidikuduru mandal, E.G. District, Without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law as illegal, arbtirary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of a.P. Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977 and Consequently directthe respondnets not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the above Said land and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GEDDAMSATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.12366 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that his father being a landless poor, was assigned land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No.431/24 and Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No.429/5 of Pasarlapudi Village, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District, and as at the time of granting D-Form patta, his father was no more, the same was granted in the name of her mother, namely, Smt.Veeramma on 15.04.1977, and since the date of the assignment, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the petitioner states that his mother was affected with paralysis and bed ridden, and taking advantage of the same, unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 10 claiming that they are the owners of the land in question, encroached thereinto, and on the representation made by the petitioner, respondent No.3 after issuing notices to the parties and conducting detailed enquiry vide proceedings Ref.No.26/07 dated 01.08.2007, restored possession of the land in question in his favour. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that official respondent Nos. 3 and 4 under the influence of unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 10, are trying to dispossess him from the land in question, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the official respondent Nos.1 to 4. The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that respondent Nos.3 and 4 at the instance of unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, even though respondent No.3, vide proceedings dated 01.08.2007, had restored possession of the land in question in his favour. Even though the land in question is an assigned land, from the facts of the case, it appears that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 to 10, and such disputes, which require adducing of evidence by the parties, cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition in exercise of power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The remedy, of the petitioner, if any, is to approach the competent civil Court having jurisdiction. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 16.06.2008. VGSR