IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 11136 of 2001 Between: Smt. Mangudi Bai, W/o Sri Raghuram Chaudhary R/o Plot No. 5/A 1st Floor Opp. to I.B.New Bus Stand, Sangareddy District, Medak. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District Sangareddy. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy District. Medak District. 3 The S.B.O. (Rural) Sangareddy Police Station, Sangareddy Medak 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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the respondents in pursuance of impugned Memo. Lr.No.k D/1176/99, dt: 3-4-2001 directing the respondents not to evict the petitoner from agricultural land measuring 7 guntas in Sy.No. 49/2 situated at Pothireddy Pally Village, Sangareddy Mandal and Talug, Medak District as illegal improper, un-consitutional, arbitrary untravires and violative of Article 300-A and fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and also in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and to grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Questioning the memo of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy, in Lr.No.D/1176/99 dated 03-04-2001, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition apprehending that she is likely to be evicted from Ac.0.07 guntas of land in Sy.No.49/2 at Pothireddypally village Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. The petitioner alleged that she is in enjoyment and possession of the aforesaid land having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 22-03-1995 registered as document No.1671/1995. The petitioner alleges that the Mandal Revenue Officer appears to have allotted various extents of land to the Housing Board, Tourism Development Corporation etc., which includes the land of the petitioner and under the aforesaid memo it is alleged that the Mandal Revenue Officer directed the Revenue Inspector to handover the aforesaid land to the said beneficiaries. The petitioner challenged the said action on the ground that she is lawful owner and occupier of the said property and she cannot be dispossessed in summary manner as contemplated under the impugned proceedings. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 11-06-2001, has suspended the said impugned proceedings and the said order is in force till today. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. It has also been brought to my notice that to the same survey number with respect to 12 guntas of land similar action was questioned by the owner of the adjacent land in W.P.No.9874 of 2001 in which the Mandal Revenue Officer filed a counter affirming that the land purchased by the petitioner therein is found justified and appropriate directions were given for mutation of their names in the revenue records and as such the apprehension expressed by the said petitioner does not survive. In the present case, as stated above, the petitioner traced her registered sale deed of 1995 and is in possession through out as is evidenced by the revenue record produced from the year 1989 onwards. Hence, even assuming that the land of the petitioner is required by the Government for allotment to any of the beneficiaries, the official respondents have to necessarily follow the due process of law and the directions given in the impugned order by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Revenue Inspector to hand over possession of the land by dispossessing the petitioner, in any case, cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of and the impugned order is set aside. However, this will not preclude the respondents to follow due process of law in the event of their requiring the aforesaid land for any purpose. No costs. __________________ 22nd December, 2008 SKM