IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17798 of 2010 Between: Pulla Venkata Rao ..... Petitioner AND The Gram Panchayath, Yelamanchili, Rep., by its Executive Officer, Yelamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondents 2 to 4: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.5: Sri J. Seshagiri Rao The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17798 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in evicting respondent No.5 from the property admeasuring 500 square yards in Sy.No.54/4 of Gandhinagar, Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.5 not to proceed with the construction of the building over the abovementioned land. I have heard Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narsu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Bala Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Sri J. Seshagiri Rao for respondent No.5 and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner, who is a resident of door No.16-28- 27 of Yelamanchili village, alleged that towards the western side of his house, there is a vacant Government poramboke land admeasuring 500 square yards in Sy.No.54/4 vested in the Gram Panchayath, that towards the western side of the vacant site, the residential house bearing door No.16-28-26 belonging to respondent No.5 is in existence and that about one month prior to the filing of the Writ Petition, respondent No.5 approached the petitioner and requested him for his permission to construct a house in the said vacant site. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has replied stating that since the land belongs to the Gram Panchayath, the question of his granting permission does not arise and that thereafter respondent No.5 occupied the said land and started construction of a pucca house. The grievance of the petitioner is that though this fact was brought to the notice of respondent No.1, no action is taken thereon. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.1 Gram Panchayath, it is inter alia stated that Sy.No.54/4 is a Grama Kantham land, that one K. Satyavathi wife of Satyanarayana made an application to respondent No.1 for allotment of a house site for construction of a residential house thereon, that respondent No.1 in its General Body meeting dated 09.09.1983 unanimously resolved for allotment of land admeasuring 30x48 in favour of the said Satyavathi. It is further stated that in pursuance of the said resolution, the Collector, Visakhapatnam, vide his proceedings dated 17.06.1987 accorded permission to respondent No.1 for sale of the said land at Rs.30/- per square yard and accordingly Smt K. Satyavathi deposited the sale price of Rs.6,000/- in instalments. It is further stated that in October 1983 the house plan submitted by Smt. Satyavathi was approved and again on 19.04.2010, another plan, which was submitted by the sister of Smt. Satyavathi by name D. Sita Nagamani, was approved. Respondent No.1 categorically denied the allegation that respondent No.5 either occupied the abovementioned land or that she is in any way connected with the said land. In support of the above averments, respondent No.1 filed resolutions and the approved plan. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, she has stated that she has nothing to do with the land in Sy.No.54/4 and she has stoutly denied the allegations made by the petitioner in his affidavit. No reply affidavits have been filed controverting the averments contained in either of the two counters. In the light of the plea taken by respondent No.1 and the material filed corroborating the said plea, the conclusion is irresistible that the land in respect of which the present Writ Petition is filed is not in occupation of respondent No.5 and that the same was allotted in favour of one Smt. K. Satyavathi. Therefore, the petitioner failed to make out any case for grant of relief in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.22491 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 02.02.2011 ES