IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12426 of 2004 Between: Pothugunta Guraaiah Naidu S/o. Ramanaidu Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Division, Chittoor District. 3 The M.R.O., Srikalahasti (M) Chittoor 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or Orders more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with my possession and enjoyment of the petitioners schedule property is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No.12426 of 2004 ORDER: The writ petition is filed alleging that the third respondent is interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property in Patha Varadaiahpalem Road, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District without following the due process of law. The petitioner claims to have purchased the house bearing No.7/48 under a registered sale deed dated 25-11-1995 from one Jalakam Satyanarayana S/o. Rangaiah. There was a thatched house at the time of purchase, which had become dilapidated. Hence, the petitioner intending to construct a pucca house laid a foundation in February 2004. While the construction was proceeding, the third respondent interfered. Hence the writ petition. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in Sy.No.185/1 in an extent of Ac.94.15 cents is classified as “Ayyalanaidu Tank Poramboke.” Since the petitioner was constructing a house in the tank poramboke land, after inspection, the answering respondent issued a notice dated 13-07-2004 and sent it for service. The petitioner was not available and the notice could not be served. As the land is public property and a tank poramboke, no construction can be carried on. In the light of the averments in the counter affidavit, which had not been contraverted, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner for eviction in accordance with law. It is however clarified that the petitioner cannot make any construction without obtaining a building permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat, local authority or any other competent authority. The writ petition is disposed of as above, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Assignment. There shall however be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. Dated: 29-04-2008. Rns. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, Chittoor 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Division, Chittoor District. 3 The M.R.O., Srikalahasti (M) Chittoor District. 4 2CCs 5 2CD copies