IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.708 of 2002 Between: Kogilathoti Golla Naganna, S/o Golla Ayyanna, Devibetta Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3 The President, Devibetta Gram Panchayat, Devibetta Village, Yemmiganur Mandal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in contemplating to cancel the assignment of house site granted in S.No.183 to an extent of 2 cents situate at Devibetta Village in favour of the Petitioner in his Proceedings No.B.746/2000. dt 1.3.2001 at the instance of 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.VIJAYA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE MR. K. UPENDER REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that, considering him as a landless poor person, the 2nd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Yemmiganur Mandal of Kurnool District, assigned him a house site to an extent of 2 cents in Sy.No.183 situated at Devibetta Village, Yemmiganur Mandal of Kurnool District, and a certificate dated 01.03.2001 was also issued by the 2nd respondent certifying his possession over the said site, and since the date of such assignment, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said site by erecting a hut thereon. It is his grievance that though he has not violated any conditions and rules of the assignment, the 2nd respondent, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, is trying to cancel the assignment granted in his favour and dispossess him from the subject site, stating that he will be assigned another house site in future. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit asserting that the petitioner was not assigned the subject site, but only a certificate of possession was granted in his favour, and that the subject site is a Government land classified as village poramboke in the revenue records. It is, however, admitted that the 2nd respondent surveyed the subject site on 27.12.2001 as it was required for public purpose and that the petitioner was informed that another Government site would be granted to him in the alternative. While admitting the writ petition on 25.01.2002, this Court passed an interim order in W.P.M.P.No.794 of 2002, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject site until further orders. Thus, the petitioner is continuing in possession of the subject site and it is not known as to whether the subject site is still required for public purpose as contended by the 2nd respondent in his counter-affidavit. Under those circumstances, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, without following the due process of law, and, if the subject property is required for any public purpose, the petitioner shall be provided alternative land before his dispossession therefrom. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 7th July, 2009. IBL