IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26232 of 2008 Between: Cherukuri Prameela Rani W/o. Koneru Syam Prasad R/o. Guntupalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector Krishna District Machilipatnam. 2 The Sub- Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer Vijayawada Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents and their subordinates in trying to forcibly occupy an extent of Ac. 1.14 cents belonging to the petitioner situated in Sy.No. 287/6, Guntupally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI P.GOVIND REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26232 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is a resident of Guntupalli Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in Krishna District. She is statedly owner of land admeasuring Ac.1.14 comprised in survey No.287/6 in the said Village. She got the property in a family partition in 1978. Be that as it is, she filed the instant writ petition alleging that on 14.11.2008 the third respondent, namely, Tahsildar, conducted survey in spite of objections, and therefore, there is likelihood of dispossession. She seeks appropriate writ of mandamus, declaration and direction. At the stage of admission itself, after getting instructions from the third respondent, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that there is proposal to acquire the land of the petitioner, and necessary steps are being taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the writ petition is filed making false allegations, which are not sound. However, it is observed that unless and until due process of law is followed, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from her land. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.12.2008 vs To 1 The District Collector Krishna District Machilipatnam. 2 The Sub- Collector cum Land Acquisition Officer Vijayawada Krishna District. 3 The Tahsildar Ibrahimpatnam Mandal Krishna District. 4 2CCs to G.P For Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KBJ}