IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6452 of 2009 Between: V.Narayana Reddy, S/o. Late V.Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. 13-571-B, Tatanagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Tahasildar, Tirupathi Rural (M) At Tirupathi, 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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents no.2 and its subordinates in not allowing the petitioner to erect fencing or taking any other steps to protect the land to an extent of Ac.5-48 cents in Sy.No.22 situated at Daminedu(V) Tirupathi rural (M) Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to erect fencing to protect the above land. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6452 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner’s father was granted ryotwari patta under the A.P. Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 in respect of Acs.5.48 cents of land in R.S.No.22 of Daminedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, way back on 10.11.1981 and after his death, the petitioner became the owner of the land. Several proceedings ensued in relation thereto in the form of appeal, revision, writ etc. Ultimately, the matter is now pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, on the strength of a direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.11444 of 1992 and batch, dated 26.10.2004. The grievance of the petitioner is that even while the proceedings at various stages are pending, third parties are trying to encroach upon the land and even the respondents are not evincing any interest to protect the land, or to permit him to put fencing around the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The rights of the petitioner were no doubt recognized by certain authorities. However, the proceedings are ultimately pending before the Commissioner of Appeals. This Court directed that status quo as regards the possession of the property shall be maintained. This naturally gives raise to some fetter on the rights of the petitioner and the respondents to put the land to any use. In these days of unprecedented clamour for land, it can easily be imagined that the persons who are active in the field would find it easy to grab the land in question. The petitioner in fact made a request to the respondents to fence the land and when he did not get any response, he seeks permission to fence the land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents herein shall arrange to fence the land in R.S.No.22 admeasuring Acs.5.48 cents situated at Daminedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District within a period of one month from today. In case, the respondents failed to do so, it shall be open to the petitioner to put the fencing. It is directed that whether the fencing is put by the petitioner or the respondents, the same shall not result in alteration of rights vis-à-vis the land, and the parties shall abide by the outcome of the pending proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J Dt.26.03.2009 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB