IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21523 of 2004 Between: R. Narayana & others … Petitioners AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Gangarami Reddy Counsel for the respondent : GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21523 of 2004 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in seeking to dispossess the petitioners and demolish the houses constructed by them in their respective house plots in Sy.No.529/1 of Peruru Village, as illegal and arbitrary. On the allegation that the petitioners purchased the assigned lands in contravention of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’), proceedings were initiated against the vendors of the petitioners. The said persons filed WP.No.1851 of 1993 and batch questioning the orders passed in the said proceedings. The said batch of writ petitions was disposed of by this Court by a common order on 29.11.2001, wherein this Court held that it was not satisfied with the enquiry conducted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri and accordingly while setting aside order dated 20.02.1992 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri, it directed him to conduct proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act, after giving notice to the persons interested in the property. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that though enquiry was initiated afresh by giving notices on 09.12.2002 and they submitted their explanations in December, 2002 itself, no final orders were passed, but the respondent was attempting to dispossess them from the property in their occupation. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent. In the absence of denial of the allegations made by the petitioners in this writ petition, I am inclined to accept the correctness of the averments contained in the affidavit filed by them. Unless the respondent passes an order in the enquiry to be held by him, he is not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the properties in occupation of the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondent is restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the properties in possession of the petitioners, until such time as he disposes of the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.28203 of 2004 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.06.2008 ES