IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1013 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 17/01/2008 in WP NO : 18209 OF 2003 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Pajuru Shiva Kumari alias Shivamma, W/o. Late Narasimha Rao R/o. & Post: Pinapaka, G. Kondur Mandal, Krishna District- 521228. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 The Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. 4 E. Subba Rao, R/o. & Post: Pinapaka, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District- 521228. 5 Morla Koteswara Rao R/o. & Post: Pinapaka, G. Konduru Mandal, Krishna District- 521228. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1013 of 2008 JUDGMENT: ( Per Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who sought writ of mandamus inter-alia seeking for eviction of the 4th respondent and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent for taking appropriate action on her representation for evicting the 4th respondent. The case of the petitioner in brief is to the eﬀect that she has been in possession and enjoyment all along of land admeasuring Ac.0.3 cents in Survey No. 52/2, Pinapaka village, Vijayawada, Krishna District and the same has been recorded by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer as per certiﬁcate dated 28.10.2001. However, it is alleged that the said plot was occupied by the 4th and 5th respondents, against which the petitioner sought eviction and no action is taken by the third respondent till date. After ﬁling of the counter by the respondents, the learned Single Judge did not ﬁnd favour with the case of the petitioner especially having regard to the fact that she has totally failed to make out a case to show any existing legal right in respect of the land in question and therefore the question of issuance of any mandamus does not arise. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the petitioner claims that she is in occupation of the plot in question, however as per the counter ﬁled by the respondents, the subject land is Government Land occupied by one Koteswara Rao/5th respondent and since it is Government land, the respondents have also taken action to evict him. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has no enforceable right, more so, she cannot claim any right in respect of the subject land, since admittedly it belongs to Government and failed to establish her rights, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of writ of mandamus in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances of the case, we do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. However, it is open to the appellant herein to make any representation seeking appropriate relief to the concerned authorities and if any such representation is made, the same shall be considered and disposed on its own merits and in accordance with law. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J DATE:17/9/2008 T VK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1013 of 2008 DATE: 17.9.2008