IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.43 of 2010 Between: P.Padma and others. … Petitioners And State Board of Technical Education & Training, Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignments) for R.3 to R.5. None for R.1 and R.2. This Court made the following: ORDER:- Having regard to the nature of the case, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal, at the interlocutory stage. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in insisting on the petitioners to vacate the lands in their occupation in Survey Nos.170/4, 170/12, 170/13 and 170/14 of Nesanuru village, Hamlet of Pillaripattu village, Putturu Mandal, Chittoor district, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents not to evict them from their respective lands. I have heard Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) representing respondents 3 to 5. The petitioners were granted D-Form pattas in respect of Ac.0.75 cents each in the above mentioned survey numbers. On 22-1-2009 respondent No.3 came to their lands and started the survey work. As there was a threat of dispossession, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1151 of 2009 in this Court. By order, dated 30-1-2009, this Court directed the respondents not to dispossess or otherwise interfere with the petitioners’ possession over the said lands, without initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioners further averred that on 2-1-2010 respondents 2 and 5 visited their lands along with the survey staff and they have again undertaken the survey work. When questioned, the petitioners were informed that the land was selected for establishment of a Polytechnic College and that they have demanded the petitioners to vacate the same. The petitioners pleaded that the respondents have no power, authority or jurisdiction to evict them from their lands as they are holding D.K.T. pattas. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5 it is, inter alia, stated that the petitioners have purchased D.K.T patta lands from S.Aneebsaheb and others; that even before purchase of the lands by the petitioners, the assignments were cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer in his proceedings, dated 9-12-1998 and 18-12-1999; that, later on, by proceedings, dated 26-4-2008, respondent No.5 resumed the lands from the petitioners’ possession and handed over the same to the Government Polytechnic College, Pillaripattu of Puttur Mandal. It is further averred that before resumption of lands, Form-1 & 2 notices were issued to the petitioners on 20-3-2008 under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and Rule 3 of the Rules made thereunder; and that as the petitioners refused to receive the notices, they were served by way of substitute notice. It is further averred that as the lands were resumed after following the procedure prescribed by law, the petitioners cannot derive any benefit from order dated 30-1-2009 in Writ Petition No.1151 of 2009. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not brought to the notice of this Court the facts mentioned in the present counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No.1151 of 2009. A perusal of the order passed in Writ Petition No.1151 of 2009 shows that no counter-affidavit was filed by the respondents in the said Writ Petitions and evidently at the admission stage the Writ Petition was disposed of. Therefore, obviously, the respondents had no opportunity to mention the fact of resumption of the lands in the said Writ Petition. Be that as it may, the petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit controverting the above averments in the counter- affidavit. As such, there is no reason for this Court to doubt the veracity of the statements contained in the counter-affidavit. Inasmuch as the land was resumed, the respondents are entitled to put the same to use for the purpose for which it was required. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such resumption, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedies before the competent forum. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ---------------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:27-7-2010/MNR