IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25354 of 2007 Between: 1 Savara Jemmaiah S/o Vem Vanjadu 2 Savara Sri Ramulu S/o Chennaiah 3 Savara Ananda S/o Somburi 4 Savara Krishna Rao S/o Pathadu 5 Savara Bheemarao S/o Pathadu 6 Savara jammaiah S/o Kitchaiah 7 Savara Shivaiah S/o Katchaiah 8 Savara Mokhalingam S/o Mannem 9 Savara Kurmaiah S/o Mannem 10 Savara Buddamma W/o Buddadu 11 Savara Ganga Rao S/o Chennaiah 12 Savara Shimmaiah S/o Somaiah 13 Savara Kuramaiah S/o Somaiah 14 Savara Ganesh S/o Appala Swamy 15 Savara Appala swamy S/o Shinganna 16 Savara Mohan Rao S/o Sannayee 17 Savara Shimmaiah S/o Sannayee 18 Savara Laxmana S/o Sambadu 19 Savara Baranthamma W/o Appanna 20 Savara Prasad S/o Kanthadu 21 Savara Chinna Simhachalam S/o Sombaru 22 Savara Sondaiah S/o Jammaiah 23 Savara Dunbhaudu S/o Sukku 24 Savara Bhalemma S/o Sombaru 25 Savara Kuvvari S/o Lakkai Petitioners 1 to 25 herein are R/o of Venkataguda Village, Seethampet Mandla, Srikakulam District. 26 Savara Sreenu S/o Poodaiah 27 Savara Venkaiah S/o Bonkudu 28 Savara Chinnasumma S/o Gnanadu 29 Savara Chinnasumma S/o Gnanadu 30 Savara Chavesu S/o Sukku 31 Savara Sukku S/o Jammaiah 32 Savara Jagga Rao S/o Sukku 33 Savara Singanna S/o Bhoothalu 34 Savara bhugganna S/o Latchanna 35 Savara Jamma Raju S/o Bhugganna 36 Savara Appaiah S/o Lakkayee 37 Savara Buddadu S/o Lakkayee 38 Savara Appanna S/o Lakkayee, 39 Savara Anapa S/o laxmana Rao 40 Savara Bangaramma S/o Asirayya, 41 Savara Bala Krishna S/o Asirayya, 42 Savara Laxmana Rao S/o Buddaiah 43 Savara Venkanna S/o Sukku 44 Savara Gandhi S/o Sukku 45 Savara Shanthamma S/o Appala Swamy 46 Savara batti S/o Appala Swamy 47 Savara Gangaiah S/o Appala Swamy 48 Savara Neelaiah S/o Bugathalu 49 Savara Mangaiah @ Mangadu S/o Addayee, 50 Savara BuggannaS/o Laxman 51 Savara Mathsyapramatthiyya S/o Sondaiah 52 Savara Laxmanna S/o Laxmana 53 Savara Durga rao S/o Sai 54 Savara rama Rao S/o kinjaiah Petitioners 26 yo 54 herein are R/o Thalada Village, Seethampeta Mndal, Srikakulam District. 55 Savara Balaraju S/o Appanna 56 Savara Komati S/o Sukku Petitioners 55 and 56 are R/o Cheedi Manuguda Village, Seethampeta Mndal, Srikakulam District. 57 Savara Veeranna S/o Rajaiah 58 Savara Lalu S/o Rajaiah 59 Savara Chukkamma W/o Venkadu 60 Savara Gangaiah S/o Rajaiah 61 Savara Sannayee S/o Sukku Petitioners 57 to 61 hrein are R/o Lingaduguda Village, Seethampeta Mandal, Srikakulam district. 62 Savara Sukkamma W/o Chennaiah 63 Savara Bugganna S/o Chennaiah 64 Savara Ramaiah S/o Kuvvari 65 Savara Jagadeesh S/o jaggarao 66 Savara Chaesu S/o Bathi 67 Savara Chennaiah S/o Chinna Jahmaraju 68 Savara Sannayee S/o Laxmanna 69 Savara Ashiraiah S/o Jahamaiah Petitioners 62 to 69 herein are R/o Uyyalaguda Village, Seethampeta Mnadal, Srikakulam District. 70 Savara Bapadu S/o Dumbaiah 71 Savara Addaiah S/o Dumbatha 72 Savara Kadayee S/o Thumbadu 73 Nimmaka Karuvu S/o Erakaiah 74 Savara Suraiah S/o Chinna Lakkamba 75 Savara Kishore S/o Pedda Bapadu 76 Savara Chandramma W/o Yendaiah 77 Savara Dashami S/o Dibbaiah 78 Savara Jaggi S/o Barathudu 79 Savara Jamma Raju S/o China Mangadu 80 Nimmaka Ghousha S/o Shinna CChukka petitioners 70 to 80 are R/o kindangi Village, Seethampet Mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Station house Officer, Seetampeta police Station, Srikakulam District. 2 The District Collector, Srikakulam District 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda Division, Srikakulam District. 4 the Project Officer, ITDA., Seethampeta, Srikakulam District. 5 Roman Catholic Mission, rep by Father/Bishop Lokottavalasa Village, Seethampeta mandal, Srikakulam 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st and 5th respondents in trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in the agriculture lands admeasuring about ac. 16.00 in Sy. Nos. 46 to 49 situated at Lokottavalasa Village, Seethampeta mandal, Srikakualm District and in trying to harvest the standing paddy crops of the petitioners therein as bad, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice, as bad, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violation of principles of natural justice and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25354 OF 2007 ORDER : The petitioners herein claim to be the residents of Lokottavalasa Village, Seethampeta Mandal, Srikakulam District which is a notified scheduled area. It is stated that all the petitioners are scheduled tribes and that they have been in occupation and enjoyment of about 23 acres of Government land situated in Sy.Nos.46 to 49 of Lokottavalasa Village for the past several years. It is also stated that they have been cultivating the said lands by raising paddy crop every year and their request for grant of pattas is under consideration by the respondents 2 to 4. It is alleged that the 5th respondent herein, in the name of conducting welfare programmes for the tribals of the area, had occupied about 200 acres of Government Land in Lokottavalasa Village and surrounding villages illegally. It is further alleged that the 5th respondent wanted to occupy the land in possession of the petitioners also and accordingly in collusion with the 1st respondent – Station House Oﬃcer, Seethampet P.S. initiated proceedings under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. On the basis of a complaint said to have been lodged by the respondents 1 and 5, the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Palakonda Division, Srikakulam District - passed an order dated 12.11.2007 in M.C.No.19 of 2007 under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. directing some of the petitioners herein and others to appear before the 3rd respondent on 24.11.2007 at 11.00 a.m. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam District on 22.11.2007 complaining about the interference by the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, taking advantage of the order of the 3rd respondent dated 24.11.2007, the 5th respondent started making eﬀorts to harvest the paddy crop raised by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 5 in attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of about 16 acres of land situated in Sy.Nos.46 to 49 of Lokottavalasa Village, Seethampeta Mandal and trying to harvest the standing crops is arbitrary and illegal. Though no counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the respondents 1 to 4, on behalf of the 5th respondent a counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled on 9.1.2008 stating that the 5th respondent is an international institution and has been running educational institutions, orphanages with boarding facilities in Srikakulam District and other places with the main object of educating tribals and providing food and shelter to the tribal students and orphans. It is further stated that the 5th respondent purchased 16 acres of land in Sy.Nos.46 to 49 apart from some other lands situated in Lokottavalasa Village and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The 5th respondent was also granted pattadar pass books and title deeds by the revenue authorities and that they have been raising paddy crop and other crops for meeting the needs of students and orphans in their educational institutions and orphanages. It is further stated that eviction proceedings initiated suo motu by the Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Ellwin Peta under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 for eviction of the 5th respondent alleging that they were in possession of the land in question in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation 1 of 1959 were dropped by order dated 30.3.1978 holding that the lands in question were not held by the tribals at any time and that the 5th respondent purchased the said lands with the permission of the Assistant Collector, Parvathipuram who is the Special Assistant Agent to the Governor. While so, one Allaboyena Appalanaidu who is a non-tribal started instigating the petitioners herein and others to cut and carry away standing paddy crop raised by the 5th respondent. In the circumstances, the 5th respondent ﬁled O.S.No.18 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Srikakulam in which a temporary injunction was granted on 13.7.2007 against the said Appalanaidu and others. The 5th respondent also applied for police protection in I.A.No.161 of 2007 in O.S.No.18 of 2007 for implementation of temporary injunction and the same was granted on 22.10.2007. In the meanwhile since the petitioners herein, at the instance of the said Appalanaidu were interfering with their possession the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent – Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Palakonda Division, Sikakulam District initiated proceedings under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.19 of 2007 and passed order dated 12.11.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties in detail. From the material placed before this Court, particularly the order dated 30.03.1978 in O.P.No.142 of 1972 on the ﬁle of the Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Ellwnipeta, prima facie, it appears that the 5th respondent holds title to the land in question having purchased the same with the permission of the Assistant Collector, Parvathipuram who is the Special Assistant Agent to the Governor. It is the speciﬁc case of the 5th respondent that since the date of purchase they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising crops. The fact that in O.S.No.18 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of the I-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam temporary injunction was granted in favour of the 5th respondent and police protection was granted for implementation of the said order also supports the title and possession claimed by the 5th respondent. The title and possession claimed by the 5th respondent has been recognized even in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive) at Palakonda in M.C.No.19 of 2007, dated 12.11.2007 under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. to which the petitioners herein were also parties. However, the petitioners herein who are all tribals claim that it is Government land and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since several years. It is also their case that the paddy crop standing on the land in question by the date of ﬁling of the writ petition in November, 2007 was raised by them. By virtue of the interim orders of status quo granted by this Court, dated 30.11.2007 and 3.12.2007 admittedly the standing crop was harvested by the petitioners. In its additional counter-aﬃdavit, dated 30.8.2008 the 5th respondent claims that this year also they raised paddy crop in the above lands for meeting the requirements of their educational institutions and orphanages and since the writ petitioners were again trying to trespass into the ﬁelds and committed acts of violence involving breach of peace and tranquility, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer-cum-Taluk Magistrate, Seethampeta, vide his orders in M.C.No.8 of 2008 asked the petitioners to appear on 31.7.2008 for executing bonds to keep peace and further proceedings are pending. As can be seen from the above narrated facts, the matter involves various questions of fact both with regard to title and possession in respect of the land in question. Since no ﬁnding as such can be recorded by this Court with regard to such disputed questions of fact, no Mandamus can be granted restraining the respondents 1 and 5 from interfering with the possession claimed by the petitioners. As a matter of fact, any such order by this Court would amount to interference with the proceedings pending before the competent Civil Court as well as the proceedings pending before the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer- cum-Taluk Magistrate under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of peace and tranquility. Virtually, the dispute is between the petitioners and the 5th respondent i.e., two private persons with respect to immoveable property. Admittedly, the said property is the subject –matter of a civil suit pending before a competent Civil Court. Absolutely, no case has been made out to show that there is violation of any statutory duty on the part of the statutory authority. Hence, the remedy of the petitioners for redressal of their grievances is elsewhere but not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 30.10.2008 gbs