IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10365 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Koneryu Govardhana W/o. K. Venkateswara Rao, Hindu R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. 2 Koneru Rani W/o. Dr. NSD Prasada Rao R/o. 4-115, Sriharinagar, Musapet, Hyderabad. 3 Koneru Satyavathi W/o.K. Rama Brahmam R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. 4 Koneru Gajendramma W/o. Koneru Seetharamaiah R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. 5 Koneru Dhanalakshmi W/o Lage K.V. Krishna Rao Hindu R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. 6 Koneru Rudramma D/o.K.V. Rrishna Rao R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. 7 Ch. Vijayalakshmi W/o. Ch. Sambasiva Rao R./o. Khanna nagar, Behind Eenadu Vijayawada, Krishna District. 8 Donepudi Sambasiva Rao S/. D. Satyanarayana R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. 9 Yelamachili Baby Sarojini W./o. Y. Jawaharlal R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. 10 Nimmagadda Annapurna D/o.N. Subba Rao R/o. 4-1/5, Srihari Nagar, Musapet, Hyderabad. 11 Nimmagadda Seethamma D/o. N. Madhava Rao R/o. 4-1/5, Srihari Nagar, Musapet, Hyderabad. 12 V,. Ramakrishna S/o.V. Madana Mohana Rao R/o. Plot No,.9 Model Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Repa by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The A.P. I.I.C. Rep. by its Chairman, Hyderabad. 4 The Station House Officer, Pahadishariff, P.S Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to disposess the petitioners from the property in Sy.No. 99/1 of Mamidipalle Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess me from the property with out following due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.K.LALITHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The 12 petitioners assert title to an extent of 450 acres of land in Sy.No. 99/1 of Mamidipalli village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They claim to have come into possession of the property under an agreement of sale and subsequently by way of execution of sale deed dated 14-6-1989 from their vendor Sri Samzal Basthawala and others. Petitioners allege that on 23-3-2008 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar visited their site along with the Station House Officer, Pahadishariff and asserting that the property is a Government property and was allotted in favour of the 3rd respondent for development of hardware park, threatened to dispossess the petitioners. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court, in substance seeking a direction to the respondents not to dispossess them without following the due process of law. Though notice before admission was ordered and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue on 23-6-2008 sought two weeks time for filing of counter-affidavit and the matter was adjourned on a number of occasions thereafter, till date no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 despite a lapse of more than one year since the date of institution of the writ petition. This writ petition is one of the several writ petitions filed every year alleging that the State officials in abuse of their official power and under the colour of public authority without following the due process of law, are invading into lands in the possession of the citizens and depriving possession unlawfully. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. To the extent relevant and material, the 3rd respondent’s counter states that the entire land in Sy.No.99/1 of Mamidipally is Government land acquired by the Government along with other 13 kanchas of a total extent of Ac.15964-25 guntas from the erstwhile Nizam under the Land Acquisition Act as evidenced by the report in the Gazette dated 15-3-1956. It is further asserted that the fact of such acquisition also finds mention in a judgment of the Supreme Court dated 26-7-1962 in Civil Appeal No. 246 of 1960 and the Notifications under the Land Acquisition Act No. 1347/1105/A3/55-56 dated 28-2-1956. According to the 3rd respondent, an extent of Ac.1226-21 guntas in Sy.No.99/1 of Mamidipally village was ordered to be handed over to the answering respondent (APIIC) by an order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.271, Industries and Commerce Department, dated 12-9-2003, on the Corporation paying a sum of Rs.7.29 crores to the Animal Husbandry Department. In para 4, the 3rd respondent states that possession of an extent of Ac.981-32 guntas was handed over to the APIIC, out of an extent of Ac.1226-21 guntas. The 3rd respondent also asserts that the petitioners’ so-called vendors Samzal Basthawala and others did not have title to convey to the petitioners as their predecessors Sri Raja Rathan Gopal Sainchar had accepted an amount of Rs.15,000/- from out of the compensation paid to HEH Nizam as a consideration for waiving his claim on Mamidipally lands. With regard to possession of the lands in question, the 3rd respondent’s counter is contradictory and equivocal. In paragraph 6 of the counter, the 3rd respondent states that “it is submitted that it is fact that since the land under encroachment by the petitioners is Government land handed over to APIIC for development of Hardware Park in public interest, the site inspection by the Tahsildar, Saroornagar Station House Officer, Pahadishariff, RR is correct in the interest of protecting the public property.” In para 7, on the other hand, the 3rd respondent denies the allegations and averments made in para 8 of the affidavit, (that the petitioners are in possession of the Government land since last 50 years) asserting that it is not correct. Aparently, though the 3rd respondent denies the 50 years “encroachment” by the petitioners, it admits their current possession. This is just the casual and irrelevant way of drafting of pleadings. Be that as it may. The petitioners and the respondents (as apparent from the averments of the 3rd respondent) are in serious contest with regard to their respective claims to ownership and possession of the property. Respondents 1 and 2 who represent the revenue interest of the State have not chosen to file a counter-affidavit though a period of one year has elapsed from the date of filing of the writ petition. This non-response by respondents 1 and 2 can be considered as non-traverse of the averments in the writ petition. As far as the 3rd respondent is concerned, as already stated, the counter-affidavit of this respondent is vague and inherently contradictory with regard to the petitioners’ assertion as to possession of the land in question. The petitioners reiterate their title and possession to the property after denying the counter averments of the 3rd respondent, in a reply affidavit. In the facts and circumstances and the state of the record and in the light of the constitutional position that in a Rule of law society, the State is not entitled to take recourse to physical measures even against encroachers, without following the due process of law, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to refrain from dispossessing the petitioners except by following the due process of law and by issuing a formal notice for their eviction. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression by this Court on the merits of the claim of the petitioners as regards their possession and title to the lands in question nor with respect to the counter claims of the 3rd respondent. Whichever party desires to assert and establish title therefore or seek preservation of possession of the property, may pursue appropriate remedies, by recourse to a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The writ petition is disposed of as above. The respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners (if they are in possession) except by following the due process of law. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 8th June, 2009. GRR