IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14057 of 2007 Between: K. Rama Rao S/o. Narasimhulu R/o.18-81/3, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam , Rep. by his Special Power of Attorney, R. Satyanarayana S/o. Surya Rao, aged 42 years , 8-43-C/3, Tamil Street, China Waltair, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration , Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Udyg Bhava, Siripuram, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Tahasildar, Visakha Rural Mandal, Govt. Dairy Forum Post Office, Visakhapatnam,. .....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 or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in removing teack and cashew plantation in the land belonging to the petitioner in Sy.No. 7/P Kommadi Village, Visakha Rural Madnal, consequently dispossessing him as unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation and put back the petitioner in the possession after removing all other pillars put up by respondent two after declaring that the authorities through the agents could not have interfered with the possession with the land belonging to the petitioner and entered the land of the petitioners and pass such order or orders as deem fit in the ilnterest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14057 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER The petitioner claims to be an assignee of Ac.5.00 of agricultural dry land in Sy.No.7/p of Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal and asserting that the action of the respondents in removing teak and cashew plantations in the said land, without following any due process of law, has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate injunctive relief against the respondents. The affidavit is filed by a Special Power of Attorney of the petitioner, pleading that the petitioner is an Ex-service man who applied to the Director of Sainik Welfare for allotment of land. Land was allotted pursuant to the petitioner’s application, by the order of the Tahasildar, Visakhapatnam dated.07- 12-1979. While so, since April-2007, the 2nd respondent has started cutting down the teak and cashew plantations in the land and on enquiries the petitioner was informed that measures were being taken for establishing a housing project in the property. The writ petition is filed on these assertions. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, an additional counter-affidavit is filed stating that there is no material to support the petitioner’s possession of land in Sy.No.7/P of Kommadi village; that the land is government land and was encroached by the petitioner without any assignment. The 3rd respondent- Tahasildar, Visakha Rural Mandal in his counter- affidavit dated.01-12-2007 states clearly and categorically that total extent of land in Sy.No.7 of Kommadi village is Ac.86.15 cents and is classified as Hill Poramboke and is recorded as such in the Settlement Fair Adangal. Of this extent, Ac.42.64 cents was alienated to the Housing Board vide proceedings dated.12-05-2005 and an extent of Ac.40.49 cents handed over to the 2nd respondent for implementing a comprehensive development programme for housing, by proceedings dated.04-01-2007. It is specifically asserted that there was no assignment of agricultural land to anybody including the petitioner in Sy.No.7 of Kommadi village and no such record as asserted by the petitioner exists in the custody of the Government. It is also asserted that the petitioner’s name was not entered even as an encroacher in the relevant column of the Adangal pertaining to the land in question and therefore the petitioner’s substantive claim of being assignee of the Government land is without any basis. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit contesting the averments in the counter-affidavit, claiming and reiterating that there was assignment in his favour. Sri K.S.Murthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral submission that subsequent to the institution of this writ petition, the petitioner has instituted O.S.No.1028 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking injunctive relief against the defendants therein. Whether there was an assignment in favour of the petitioner is now a seriously disputed question of fact. It is as a dominus litus the petitioner’s burden to establish the factum of assignment of Government land in his favour by producing oral and documentary evidence in support of such claim, which may be contested by the State and the 2nd respondent by similar adduction of oral and documentary evidence, a process more appropriate before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction rather than in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the aforesaid analysis the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate civil remedies in respect of his claim to ownership and possession of the property on the basis of the assignment claimed in his favour. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 19th JUNE 2009 *TSNR