IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1142 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/11/2007 in WP NO : 24763 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Yalla Balaswamy S/o Sikamani H. No. 5-40-2, Bomminapadu Krishna District. 2 Yalla Gabriyel S/o Sikamani H. No. 5-40-2, Bomminapadu Krishna District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Daram jayantiraju S/o Peda Mahalaxmudu Krishna District at Machilipatnam. R/o Bomminampadu, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. 2 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudiwada, Krishna District. 4 The Tahsildar (M.R.O.) Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the AppellantS: SRI G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents.: SRIT.V.V.KOTESWARA RAO & GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1142 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order, dated 29.11.2007 in W.P.No.24763 of 2007, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellants with the leave of the Court. The 1st respondent herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in dispossessing him on 23.11.2007 or any date from Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.360/3 in Bomminampadu village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District, during the pendency of his representation dated 31.10.2007, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the official respondents not to dispossess him from the said lands till the disposal of his representation. The learned Single Judge, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, having held that as the writ petitioner is in possession of the land in question, he cannot be evicted, without following due process of law, directed the official respondents not to evict the writ petitioner from the lands in question, without following due process of law. Now, the appellants, who are third parties, filed the present appeal with the leave of the Court contending that Yalla Kantamma, who was their mother, is the original assignee in respect of the land in question and the appellants being legal heirs of the original assignee, got interest in the property in question and therefore, the occupation of the writ petitioner is illegal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. In view of the controversy raised in respect of the land in question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it just and proper to grant liberty to the appellants to make a representation before the 4th respondent-Tahsildar with regard to their claim over the disputed land. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the appellants to make a representation before the 4th respondent, within a period of four weeks from today. As and when such representation is made, the 4th respondent shall dispose of the same, in accordance with law. Subject to the above direction, this writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice C.V. Nargarjuna Reddy Dated: 19.1.2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1142 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 19th January, 2009