IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14004 of 2005 Between: 1 Yarlagadda Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Late Pitchaiah, R/o. Yarlagadda, Challilpalli Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Yarlagadda Prameela Rani, W/o.Srinivasa Rao, R/o. Yarlagadda, Challilpalli Mandal, Krishna District. 3 Inapudi Rajagopala Rao, s/o.Narayana, R/o.Ghantasala, Ghantasala Mandal, Krishna District. 4 Gorripati Gopichand, S/o.Leela Krishnaiah, R/o.Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5 Gorripati Rajeswari, W/o.Gopichand, R/o.Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Machilipatnam, Collector Compound, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue officer, Bandar Mandal, mandal Revenue office, Beside Bus Station, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the lands admeasuring Acs.3.50 cents, 3.50 cents, Acs.3.00 cents, Acs.2.25 cents and Acs.2.25 cents respectively comprised in R.S.Nos.292/1C and 292/1A of Rudravaram Village, Krishna District, without notice to the petitioners, without conducting enquiry and without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. In their affidavit, the petitioners traced their purported title by giving lengthy details of the genesis of title and how the same came to be vested in them. In the view I am taking, it is not necessary to delve into all those details. It will suffice to say that the petitioners, who earlier filed O.S.No.192 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam against respondents 1 and 2, filed this writ petition complaining that the respondents are seeking to dispossess them without following due process of law. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the said suit was withdrawn, in view of the bar contained in the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Machilipatnam Mandal (FAC), Krishna District-respondent No.3, it is averred that the land in respect of which the petitioners are claiming right is declared surplus under the proceedings issued by the competent authorities under the Act and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar has issued Form IX notice on 10-03-2005 for serving the same on the declarant and after affixture of the said notice, the land admeasuring Acs.17.94 cents in R.S.Nos.292/1C and 292/1C3 was taken possession by the Additional Revenue Inspector, Machilipatnam on 19-03-2005. As regards land in R.S.Nos.292/2 and 46/1B, it is stated that the same was taken possession by the Mandal Revenue Inspector on 12-05-1993. It is further averred that a list of beneficiaries was prepared and the land was allotted to 45 persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories and that the land is in possession of the said persons. It is also averred that proposals were submitted under the Andhra Pradesh Comprehensive Land Development Programme i.e., Indira Prabha to the Project Director, District Water Management Authority, Stage Guest House Compound, Vijayawada on 19-09-2005. The answering respondent denied the allegation of the petitioners that they have converted the lands into fish tanks and obtained agricultural loans by paying necessary taxes. From the pleadings of the parties, it is quite evident that the petitioners are claiming rights over the property situated in R.S.Nos.292/1C and 292/1A of Rudravaram Village, Krishna District. The counter-affidavit is silent with regard to the property comprised in R.S.No.292/1A, while a plea has been taken that property in R.S.Nos.292/1C1 and 292/1C3 was taken possession. The question whether the property, which the petitioners are claiming in R.S.Nos.292/1C and 292/1A, is the same as the property which according to the respondents was declared to be surplus under the provisions of the Act falls for consideration in this case. As this question remains a disputed question of fact, which requires to be adjudicated with reference to documentary evidence, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the same and give a specific finding thereon. Hence, I feel it appropriate that respondent No.1 decides this issue after examining the material and hearing the petitioners. In the above premises, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to decide the question whether the property in R.S.Nos.292/1C and 292/1A admeasuring Acs.3.50 cents, Acs.3.50 cents, Acs.3.00 cents, Acs.2.25 cents and Acs.2.25 cents, over which the petitioners made their claim respectively, are lands which were declared as surplus under the provisions of the Act or not. If it is found that they are not the surplus lands or patta lands, but the same were private lands, the respondents shall not continue further proceedings against the petitioners. If, on the other hand, it is found that the said lands were surrendered under the provisions of the Act, the respondents shall be free to take action for recovery of possession from the petitioners after following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.1174 of 2006 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 4th July, 2008 vrn