IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5505 of 2008 Between: Madapati Mahalakshmi W/o Sarreddy R/o Merlapalem Village, Atreyapurem Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Atreyapurem Mandal, East Godavari District. .....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 issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the natureof wRit of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaringthe action of the respondent interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the agriculture land of the petitioner i.e an extent of Ac. 2.71 cents of agriculture land situted in Sy. no. 102/2B of Merlapalem Village, Atreyapuram mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and consequently directthe respondent to follow the due process of law and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.L.NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5505 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.71 cents in Survey No. 102/2B, Merlapalem village, Atteyapuram mandal, East Godavari district as illegal. The petitioner claims that he is absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.2.71 cents in Survey No. 102/2B, Merlapalem village, Atteyapuram mandal, East Godavari and is in possession and cultivating the same. The petitioner alleges that there is a standing commercial crop the respondents herein have visited his land, measured the same and made certain markings in his land and on his enquiries, he was informed that the bund of the Godavari river is going to be expanded. Hence, the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court in W.P. No.4383 of 2008 dated 29.2.2008. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue admitted the same. Both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No. 4384 of 2008. This Court in W.P.No. 4383 of 2008 has already considered the similar issue as raised in the present writ petition and disposed of the same by orders dated 29.2.2008. The operative portion of the same reads as under; “Admittedly, the purpose for which the said land is sought to be acquired is a public purpose. If that be so, if any portion of the land is required unless the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated in accordance with law, petitioner cannot be dispossessed. Accordingly, Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” In the circumstances, following the orders passed by this Court in similar case in W.P No. 4383 of 2008 dated 29.2.2008 and in view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, without following due process of law for acquisition of the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 14.3.2008 TVK ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5505 of 2008 Date: 14.3.2008