THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9942 of 2001 23.8.2007 Between: S.Papa Rao, S/o.Narayana Appadu …Petitioner And Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Visakhapatnam And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9942 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, namely, Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling (ULC), Visakhapatnam, and Estate Officer, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), in threatening to evict the petitioner from the property situated in house No.39-23- 28/3 in an extent of 174 Sq.yards comprised in survey No.24/3B (the property, for brevity), as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner allegedly purchased the property under registered sale deed from Smt.Kanaka Ratnam, who appears to have acquired title and interest by virtue of a compromise decree in O.S.No.50 of 1981 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner alleges that when he purchased the property, there was a small house at the site. On 11.5.2001, respondents approached the petitioner and threatened to evict him from the property on or before 14.5.2001. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petition. Petitioner also contends that the property is not governed by the provisions under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act, for brevity). In spite of the same, petitioner allegedly approached the authority to consider his case for regularization on payment of a sum of Rs.200/- per Sq.mtr. First respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated that Sanapala Appala Swamy and his son Seetha Rama Mohanarao filed declarations under Section 6(1) of ULC Act. The father was declared to be surplus holder of vacant site to an extent of 20375.2 Sq.mts. and the son was declared to be surplus holder of vacant site to an extent of 3968.8 Sq.mts. After completing the proceedings, sub-division of the property was made and the entire land was denoted as survey Nos.24/8A and 24/9B. The surplus land was allotted to VUDA by the District Leval Allotment Committee, Visakhapatnam, and was handed over to VUDA as per orders in G.O.Ms.166, dated03.3.2001. It is alleged that the petitioner is not at all in possession of the land in survey No.24/8A and 24/9B. It is also alleged that the petitioner purchased the property in survey No.24/3B but he occupied Government land in survey No.24/8A and that there is no house thereon. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (ULC). Petitioner has not placed any evidence before this Court in support of the contention that he is in possession of the property purchased by him and that there is a house existing thereon. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the question only based on the affidavit averments. Secondly, first respondent filed counter affidavit based on records stating that the land in survey Nos.24/8A and 24/9B is surplus vacant land, which is handed over to VUDA. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek any direction from this Court. However, if the petitioner is in possession of the land in survey No.24/8A, respondents shall evict him by following due process of law. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) August 23, 2007 YS