IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8754 of 2005 Between: Hiralal Bhati, S/o. Ratanial Bhati, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.District. 2 District Collector, R.R.District at Hyderabad. 3 Mandadi Narayan, S/o. Late Atchaiah, R/o. H.No.4-12, Gandiguda Viallage, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.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 of prohibition or any other appropriate writ restraining the 1st respondent from proceedings with the enquiry pursuant to notice in file No.B/691/2004 and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Act.9- 14 guntas in Sy.No.5/2 of Ganndiguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R.District and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is directed against a notice dated 16-08- 2004 issued by the first respondent informing the petitioner that his possession over the land in an extent of Ac.09-14 guntas in survey No. 5 of Gandiguda village, Shamshabad mandal, Rangareddy district is illegal in view of protected tenancy rights having been issued to the third respondent under the provisions of Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was informed that his possession of the land is unauthorized and illegal and that he should vacate the land within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice or else he would be evicted and the possession restored to the protected tenant by taking recourse to a summary eviction process under Section 98 of the Act. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property from one Gulam Sadiq Ali Khan and others, pattedars of the property. The third respondent who is the protected tenant has filed a counter affidavit asserting that he is recognized as ‘protected tenant’ and his name was entered in the Protected Tenancy Final List maintained under Section 37-A of the Act in respect of land in survey No.5/2 in an extent of Ac.09-14 guntas, Gandiguda village, Shamshabad mandal, Ranga Reddy district. One Smt. Alia Jahan Khatoon was the original landowner and he had purchased Ac.02-00 from her under a registered sale deed bearing document No. 65/1970 dated 02- 02-1970. The petitioner was given ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Act for an extent of Ac.09-14 guntas in survey No. 5/2 and Ac.04-24 guntas in survey No. 4/2 for which he paid Rs.1,141 through a demand draft on 27-072005 to the landholder – Smt. Jahan Khatoon; Muntaj Jahan Khatoon and Gulam Sadhik Ali Khan as per the price fixed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella division, Ranga Reddy district and in respect of the land for which the petitioner was given a certificate under Section 38-E of the Act. The petitioner further states that one Chennaiah, Revenue Inspector of the village induced the petitioner that he will help him in obtaining certificate under Section 38-E of the Act and obtained his signatures on blank papers. The petitioner was issued the certificate under Section 38-E of the Act in respect of survey No.5 wherein it is noted that he had surrendered his ownership rights in survey number to an extent of Ac.09-14 guntas in favour of one Sriram son of Ramadhar on 01-12-1995. The third respondent contends further that Sriram is not holder of the land and therefore no question of surrender by the petitioner in favour of Sriram could have been recorded in the proceedings/certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Act. The petitioner contends that since he is the holder of the certificate in an extent of Ac.09-14 guntas in survey No. 5/2, he is entitled to restoration of possession from the third respondent who claims title through Sriram and eventually through the landholders Gulam Sadhik AliKhan. The rival contentions of the petitioner on one hand and the third respondent on the other hand, need no resolution in this writ petition. The writ petition is directed against a mere notice issued by the second respondent intimating the petitioner that he is in illegal possession of the land of third respondent who has been granted ‘Protected Tenancy Certificate’ and that should he fail to vacate from the property itself in question, summary eviction proceedings will be initiated under Section 98 of the Act. This proceeding per se is merely in the nature of sensitization and does not visit the petitioner with any adverse consequences. As and when a formal proceeding under Section 98 of the Act is issued to the petitioner to summarily evict him from the premises, the petitioner could have a cause of action and may pursue appropriate remedies thereagainst. The petitioner is always at liberty to infrom the second respondent that the basic premise on which the petitioner is alleged to be in illegal occupation of the property, is wrong. At any rate, he has a remedy available as and when proceedings under Section 98 of the Act are initiated. On the aforesaid analysis, no cause for interference is perceived. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 10-04-2008 Pvks/*