THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16985 of 2002 DATED 09.09.2009 BETWEEN: Sunkara Suryavathi … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16985 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Payakaraopet in Visakhapatnam District. Her father occupied a small piece of land opposite to Railway track, constructed a thatched house and was residing there. It is alleged that electrical connection was also obtained and taxes are being paid to Gram Panchayat. Considering all these, petitioner was allotted house site patta on 28.10.1999. It is her case that on 14.06.2002 at 12.00 Noon, fourth respondent and Revenue Inspector with other officials came to the hut and demolished construction without giving any notice and without conducting enquiry. Therefore, she filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus directing respondents not to interfere with possession of house plot in survey No.32/1C of Lingalathota Colony, Payakaraopet Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that petitioner is in illegal occupation of Government land. It is, however, stated that she was not given any patta and that Gram Panchayat did not give any permission for construction of house. It is further stated that the house of petitioner is causing obstruction to the free passage of the road. The other allegations made by petitioner are denied. Though counter affidavit is filed on 31.10.2002, petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit traversing the allegations therein. Therefore, an inference can be drawn that she was not granted any patta and that she is in occupation of Government land as alleged by her. If that be the case, unless and until petitioner is evicted by following due process of law and issuing notice to her, petitioner cannot be evicted from the place. Even if the occupation of Government land by petitioner is causing obstruction to the free passage of the road, third respondent may consider providing alternative house site to petitioner as there is no denial that she is landless and homeless poor person entitled to patta. The writ petition, with the above observation, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.09.2009 pln