IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5311 of 2002 Between: Gadde Radhakrishna Kumari, W/o.Rama Krishna ..... PETITIONER AND The Agent to Government/District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru And others .....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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5311 OF 2002 ORDER: Petitioner is statedly owner of land admeasuring Acs.5.43 in R.S.No.256/10 situated at Ganapavaram village of Buttaigudem Mandal in West Godavari District (hereafter, petition schedule land). The land was gifted to her by her father, Nunna Venkataratnam, under registered gift deed dated 01.10.1977. It is the case of petitioner that petition schedule land and other lands were purchased by her father and his brother from Chintalapati Sitaramachandra Varaprasada Murthy Raju under registered sale deed dated 29.3.1951, that in the family partition under registered partnership deed dated 15.11.1960, her father got petition schedule land and that she acquired absolute rights to the land. It appears that in 1990, second respondent initiated action under Section 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Schedule Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (as amended by Regulation I of 1970), (hereafter, Regulations), and took cognizance of S.R.Nos.1234, 1315, 1316, 1318 and 1414 of 1990 against petitioner, her father, sister and others. It appears that second respondent passed orders on 07.2.1995 in favour of petitioner and others holding that possession of the land by petitioner is not hit by Section 3(1) of the Regulations. Petitioner alleges that again in 1999, second respondent initiated action under Section 3(1) of the Regulations against Gadde Vijaya Lakshmi, who is elder sister of petitioner. An order of ejection was passed on 11.5.1999. Appeal ﬁled by Gadde Vijaya Lakshmi against the said order was dismissed by Agent to Government on 19.11.2001, aggrieved by which, she ﬁled revision petition, which is pending. Even while revision is pending, it is alleged that third respondent tried to evict petitioner even though there is paddy crop on the land at the time of ﬁling writ petition. Therefore petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents in trying to evict petitioner from petition schedule land as illegal and arbitrary. Learned Counsel for petitioner has taken this Court through order dated 11.11.1998 passed by second respondent in S.R.No.394 of 1998 and the order passed by Agent to Government and District Collector in S.R.A.No.7 of 2001, dated 19.11.2001. A perusal of these two orders would show that though at one point of time, petitioner’s husband, Gadde Rama Krishna, appeared before second respondent, no eﬀort was made by second respondent to issue notice to petitioner. However an order was passed directing third respondent to evict Gadde Vijaya Lakshmi, her family members and others from the land admeasuring Acs.4.56 in R.S.No.256. This only means that the order does not in any manner bind on the petitioner nor petitioner can be evicted from petition schedule land i.e., Acs.5.43 in R.S.No.256/10, which is allegedly in possession of petitioner. This Court also observes that if petitioner is aggrieved by orders passed by second respondent, which is conﬁrmed by ﬁrst respondent, it is always open to her to prefer revision petition under Section 6 of Regulations. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 12, 2008 YS