IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 19648 of 2001 Between: Ch. Sanyasaamma W/o Demudu, R/o Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 VUDA Rep. by its Secretary, Visakhapatnam. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddagantyada, Visakhapatnam. ...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 order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No. 64/7 situated in Peddagantyada Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.D.PRASANNA KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MS. V. PREETHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears for the petitioner. No counter is forthcoming. 2. It is case of the petitioner that she is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.64/7 situated in Peddagantyada Village, Gopavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The petitioner succeeded to the said property from her father and she is said to be in occupation and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that the respondent authorities without giving any notice and without following due process of law attempted to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. This Court by interim order dated 20.12.2001 directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her land. 3. As no counter is forthcoming, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the rights of the petitioner, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 3, 2008 DSK