IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 4223 of 2005 Between: D.Ramanna, s/o D.Laxmaiah, r/o Tekulapalli Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, at Mahaboobnagar. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Makthal Mandal, at Makthal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Manager, S.C.Corporation, Mahaboobnagar District at Mahaboobnagar. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the agricultural land of the petitioner bearing Sy.No.230/A to an extent of Ac.2.09 guntas situated at Manthangoad village, Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District without acquiring and paying compensation as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.GOVERDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: The petitioner claims to be the pattedar and to be in possession of agricultural land in an extent of Ac.2-09 guntas in Sy.No.230/A, Manthangoad Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. He inherited the property from his ancestors and his name has also been mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner claims to have been issued a pattedar passbook and title deeds in respect of the land, on 10-8-1997 by the 2nd respondent. While so, the 3rd respondent is alleged to have come to the property in January, 2005 along with the local residents and political leaders with a view to dispossess the petitioner for the purpose of providing house sites for weaker section people and without following the due process of law. The writ petition has been filed on 1-3-2005. Three years have gone by and the respondents have also been served, but none of them have chosen to file a counter-affidavit or rebut the allegations in the writ petition. The respondents suffer no disability known to law nor enjoy an immunity and are therefore required to respond to the Rule nisi issued by this Court, with expedition. In the absence of any counter, the assertion in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition must be taken to have been established by non-traverse. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent must be presumed to have gone to the property of the petitioner in January, 2005 with an intent to dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed not to take any steps for dispossessing the petitioner from the property in Sy.No. 230/A of an extent of Ac.2-09 guntas of Manthangoad Village, Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District without following the due process of law for acquisition of the petitioner’s property. As the respondents have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit or rebut the allegations in the writ petition and in view of the un-rebutted allegations in the writ petition, the 3rd respondent shall pay costs in an amount of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred) to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above with costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th April, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies