IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4299 of 2001 Between: Sheik Abdul Khadar Jeelani S/o Late Sheik Abdul Rahim D.No.5/90, Kothapet, Nuzvid, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Excise Superintendent Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st and 2nd Respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the Patta land of an extent of Ac.1.05 cents in Sy.41/part of Sunkollu Village, Nuzvid Mandal under the guise of alleged excise dues without notice and opportunity as illegal, intentional, malaﬁde, arbitrary, without right or authority and opposed to principles of natural justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.4299 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1.05 cents situated in Survey No.41/part of Sunkollu Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District. According to him, his father purchased the said property from one Malavathu Jamkha under a registered sale deed, dated 03.11.1969. He claims to be in possession of the said land and states that he is raising mango crop thereon. While so, the second respondent in the writ petition viz., the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Nuzvid Mandal, is said to have entered upon the petitioner’s land alleging that the Excise Superintendent, Machilipatnam, the ﬁrst respondent in the writ petition had informed him that the petitioner had to pay certain excise dues and accordingly the petitioner would have to vacate the land, which would be attached in connection with the recovery of the said excise dues. The petitioner averred that he never did any business in arrack or excise contracts at any point of time and he was not liable to pay any excise dues to the Excise Department. He ﬁled the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents herein in trying to dispossess him from the subject land without affording him any notice or opportunity. Separate counter-aﬃdavits are ﬁled by the respondents. The ﬁrst respondent stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the petitioner did not do any arrack business and that he does not have any dues to the Excise Department. It is clearly stated that the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Krishna District never entered upon the land of the petitioner and that there was no need to proceed against the land of the petitioner as he was not an excise defaulter. It is claimed that the ﬁrst respondent is wrongly impleaded in the writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the second respondent, it is stated that the petitioner is not having any land in survey Nos.41/1 or 41/2 of Sunkollu Village. Therefore, the petitioner’s allegation that the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the said land was not correct. There is a denial with regard to the alleged entry of the Revenue Oﬃcials upon the land of the petitioner in connection with any excise dues. It is stated that the land in Survey No.41/1 of Sunkollu Village is a Vagu poramboke, while the land in Survey No.41/2 is a patta land, which is in possession and enjoyment of others and the petitioner has no right or title on the land in either of the survey numbers. Heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the second respondent. It is pertinent to note that the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the second respondent is silent with regard to the title document relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate his ownership over the subject land. A copy of the said sale deed dated 03.11.1969, is ﬁled as part of the material papers in the writ petition and a mention thereof has been made in the body of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition. It is therefore not proper on the part of the second respondent to baldly state that the petitioner is not the owner of any land in Survey Nos.41/1 or 41/2. Be that as it may, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into a question of fact as to whether the petitioner owns the land admeasuring Ac.1.05 cents in Survey No.41/part as claimed by him or not. However, basing upon the registered title document relied upon by the petitioner, this Court feels that the possession of the petitioner over the subject land, if true, can only be interfered with by the respondents following the procedure laid down by law. It is not open to the respondents to dispossess the petitioner from the land claimed by him under the said title document, without complying with the due procedure. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 10.09.2008 va