IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27261 of 2003 Between: Ande Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Muttaiah R/o. Manuguru Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Manuguru, Khammam District. 3 Station House Officer, Ashok Nagar, Manuguru Police Station, Manuguru, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.KAMESWAR RAO Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the pattedar passbook (patta No.625) issued in the name of the petitioner is binding on the respondents and to direct the respondents not to disturb the petitioner’s possession of Ac.2.10 guntas of land comprised in Survey No.138/4 of Manuguru, Khammam District. Heard Sri R.Kameswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2. No one represented respondent No.3. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit shows that out of an extent of Ac.7.00 of land, for which patta was granted in favour of the petitioner’s joint family, Ac.3.30 guntas in Survey No.138/1547 fell to the share of the petitioner and survey number was changed as 138/4 during the proceedings taken out under the Record of Rights Act and that pattedar passbook and title deeds were issued in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have sold an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas of the said land to one K.Venkaiah, who was alleged to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and that the said document was received and kept pending without registration, for enquiry and verification in the Sub-Registrar’s Office. The petitioner alleged that on 22.12.2003, respondent No.3 sent a Constable to his house who informed him that respondent No.3 wanted to see him and that when he met respondent No.3 at his office on the evening of that day, he threatened the petitioner to vacate the land, which was earlier given by the petitioner for conducting exhibition to certain private persons. The petitioner further alleged that again on 25.12.2003, Respondent No.3 summoned the petitioner to the Police Station and gave a similar threat to him. The petitioner asserted that his family is in possession of the property for the last 70 years and that he is the lawful holder of the property having obtained the pattedar passbook and title deeds. The petitioner termed the action of the respondents as illegal and unconstitutional. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, stated that respondents 1 and 2 have not been interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the land in question. There is no representation for respondent No.3. In the absence of any counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, I am inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.3 had unlawfully interfered with the petitioner’s possession of the property covered by the pattedar passbook and title deeds. In the face of the stand taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that they are not interfering with the petitioner’s possession, respondent No.3 has neither power nor authority to interfere with the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and respondent No.3 is restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property in question. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th June, 2008. kvni