THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 2000 of 2004 Dated: 30-6-2011 Between A.Narasimhulu and others …Appellants And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Anantapur Dist. and others …Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri Sridhar Reddy for the appellants/writ petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents even though the name of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue is reflected in the cause list. None of the counsel for the respondents have also made an appearance at the hearing. The writ petition was filed for a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings dated 5-7-1994 on the basis of a note of the 1st respondent dated 30-6-1994 is illegal and arbitrary. A consequent direction is also sought to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners with respect to a building known as “Addagiri Appaiah Choultry” in Dharmavaram town. As per the pleaded case of the petitioners-appellants, their great grandfather constructed a Choultry in Sy.No. 471-5A2/A1/A1B/1A sometime prior to 1892 and constructed a mantapam and compound walls and managed the same for the benefit of the travelers to the town. After the demise of the Founder of the Choultry, his successors who are now the petitioners are managing the Choultry. Petitioners specifically assert that the Choultry is a family Choultry and no one has any interest in the same. As the Choultry was in a dilapidated condition, they demolished the old structure with a view to construct a new building. At that stage, the 2nd respondent, by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 5-7-1994, on the basis of the note received from the 1st respondent dated 30-6-1994, caused local inquiries including by calling the writ petitioners and after recording a finding that the property is a village poramboke and therefore belongs to the State, took possession of the site along with the constructions and dispossessed the petitioners. By the judgment dated 17-6-2004 the writ petition of the year 1994 was disposed of, demonstrably a decade after its institution. Despite the clear, categorical and unambiguous assertion by the petitioners that they were in possession and enjoyment of the site along with constructions thereon for successive generations tracing back to the year 1892; that they were illegally dispossessed by the respondents 1 and 2 who are revenue authorities; without the authority of any law and without following any due process; no counter-affidavit was filed denying the assertions of title and long and continuous possession by the petitioners of the schedule property. Nevertheless the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that as the dispute between the parties is civil in nature; as to who constructed the Choultry and who is in possession and managing the same; such disputes ought not to be determined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the writ petitioner be relegated to pursue appropriate remedies before an appropriate Forum, while maintaining the interim order of status quo till the alternative remedies are pursued by the petitioners. It is aggrieved thereby that the appeal is filed. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the clear and categorical assertion by the petitioners that they have title and are in possession of the schedule property including the constructions therein since sometime in 1892 when their great grandfather had constructed the Choultry; and in the context of the fact that no counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents for over a decade till the writ petition was disposed of or even thereafter, in this appeal; on the principle of non-traverse the inference is compelling that the petitioners were in possession of the schedule property for long and are being dispossessed of by the order of the 2nd respondent impugned in the writ petition on the basis of an assumption as to title by the 2nd respondent, and under no authority known to law. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 17-6-2004 in W.P.No. 15135 of 1994 is set aside; the writ petition is allowed and the respondents directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of the premises known as “Addagiri Appaiah Choultry” in Sy.No. 471-5A2/A1/A1B/1A in Dharmavaram town, without following the due process of law. There shall however be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 30th June, 2011 ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J GRR