IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3548 of 2009 Between: Anasuri Venkata Ramana S/o.Nookayya R/o.1-150, 6th ward, A.Vijayanagaram Village, Gollaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Samalkot, East Godavari District. 3 The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada. 4 The Station House Officer, Thimmapuram Police Station, Thimmapuram, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari 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 impugned action of the 2nd Respondent in refusing to furnish the valuation certificate in respect of land in Sy.No.195/7 of Panduru Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents thereby disabling me from approaching the competent civil Court to enforce his rights and title and also the 4th Respondent in illegally harassing him to vacate the land and hand over the same to some unknown persons, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice etc and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to issue petitioner the Market Value certificate in respect of the above said land to enable him to approach a competent civil Court for requisite reliefs in respect of the said land and also direct the 3rd respondent and his subordinates including the 4th respondent not to coerce the petitioner to vacate the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.195/7 of Pandur Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.V.ANANTHA KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3548 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner states that an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land in Survey No.195/7 of Panduru Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District was assigned to one Mr.Penkey Lova Raju, an ex-serviceman, on 30.11.1978. The petitioner is said to have acquired rights over the property on the basis of endorsement, dated 28.02.1986, on payment of entire consideration and securing possession of the land. It is stated that the petitioner intended to file a suit, since he was facing threat of dispossession from several quarters. For that purpose, he is said to have approached the second respondent to furnish the value of the said property in the context of payment of Court fee and choosing the forum. The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is refusing to furnish the value on the ground that the land belongs to the Government. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is in a very limited context, that the petitioner had approached this Court. He intended to file a suit and for that purpose, wanted to ascertain the value of the property from the second respondent. The certification by the second respondent becomes relevant in the context of payment of Court fee as well as jurisdiction of the Court. For any reason, if the second respondent is expressing inability or deliberately refusing to furnish the value, the right of the petitioner to seek remedies before the civil Court cannot be defeated. Further, the valuation to be furnished in the suit is always provisional and subject to determination by the Court at various stages. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to file a suit by stipulating the value of the property as per his assessment and the Court concerned, shall entertain the suit without insisting on specific certification of the suit property by the second respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.26.03.2009 VGB