IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12965 of 2000 Between: Vaddepalli Jaisankar, S/o. Late Viswanadham, R/o. Siddipet, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak, Sangareddy 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Siddipeta, Medak District 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipeta, Medak District 4 The Medical Officer, Leprasy Hospital Siddipeta, Medak District 5 K.Ramulu S/o.Sambaiah R/o.Siddipeta, Medak District R5 is impleaded as per court order in WPMP 1849/01 dt:19.7.02. 6. K.Vajramma 7. K.Bharati R6 & R7 impleaded as per Court order in WPMP No.2940 of 2005 dt.24/2/2005. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR M.RAMAKANTH FOR MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondents 4 to 7: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to forbear from having possession over Ac.0.21 guntas of land of the petitioner in Survey Nos.1130 and 2239 of Siddipet after declaring the forcible occupation of the said land by respondent No.4 as illegal. Heard Sri M.Ramakanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner claimed that he is the pattadar of land in Survey Nos.1130 and 2239 of Siddipet; that the Government allotted Acs.2.00 land in Survey Nos.88 and 89, adjacent to his patta land, to respondent No.4; that as the said respondent forcibly occupied a part of his patta land to the extent of Ac.0.21 guntas in Survey Nos.1130 and 2239, he made a complaint to respondent No.1 by application dated 04-08-1999 with a request to survey the lands and that in pursuance of the said application, respondent No.1 on 20-08- 1999 directed respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry through Mandal Revenue Officer and M.C.Inspector. He further averred that accordingly survey was conducted and found that respondent No.4 was in possession of Ac.0.21 guntas of land of the petitioner in excess of Acs.2.00 allotted to him and a panchanama was conducted to that effect on 30-12-1999 by the Deputy Inspector, Survey and Land Records and that in pursuance of the said survey and panchanama, respondents 2 and 3 directed respondent No.4 to handover possession of Ac.0.21 guntas of land to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said direction, respondent No.4 has not handed wover the possession. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is stated that the Government Leprosy Hospital, Temporary Hospitalization Ward and Medical Officers’ quarters have been constructed over an extent of Acs.9.00 of Government land in Survey Nos.88 and 89 in Narsapur Village, Siddipet Mandal and that possession of the land was handed over to the Medical Officer, Leprosy Control Unit, Siddipet-respondent No.4 on 12-02-1981 and that the hospital has been running over the said land for almost two decades. It is further averred that the said land belongs to the Government and is classified as ‘Kharij Khata’ in the revenue records. Respondent No.3 denied the allegation of the petitioner that the Medical Officer occupied an extent of Ac.0.21 guntas in Survey Nos. 1130 and 2239 as baseless and stated that his Office is not aware of any survey having been conducted on 20-08-1999 and the records do not disclose such survey having been conducted. He also denied the allegation that respondents 2 and 3 directed respondent No.4 to handover possession of the land in question. I have perused an unsigned copy of typed letter dated 20-08- 1998 said to have been addressed by Sri R.R.Mishra, I.A.S., Collector (Survey and Land Records), Medak District, Sangareddy to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. In the said letter, it is stated that the Collector inspected and demarcated the land in Survey Nos.1130 and 2239 of Siddipet and Survey Nos.88 and 89 of Narsapur Village, Siddipet Mandal on 17-08-1999 and 18-08-1999 as per the request of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Siddipet and that during the survey, it was found that respondent No.4 is in occupation of a part of the land in Survey Nos.1130 and 2239 which was not allotted to him. A careful perusal of this letter shows that though this letter is stated to have been addressed in the name of the Collector, Medak District, at the end it is shown to have been signed by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records. In the face of denial of any survey having been conducted in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and in the absence of an authenticated copy of the letter produced by the petitioner, it is not possible for this Court to pronounce upon the genuineness or otherwise of the purported letter. At any rate, when the letter is addressed in the name of the Collector, it is not known how the same was signed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, more so when the contents of the letter suggest as if the Collector himself had conducted the survey. In the view I am taking in this writ petition, it is not necessary to dilate further on this aspect. Assuming that the petitioner’s claim that respondent No.4 is in occupation of a part of the land belonging to him is true, it is not permissible for any of the official respondents to forcibly take over a part of the land in occupation of respondent No.4. The petitioner is entitled to approach the civil Court or avail his other remedies available under common law for recovery of possession. Therefore, the writ petition which is wholly misconceived is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for recovery of possession. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 18th July, 2008 vrn