IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15619 of 2009 Between: K. Raveendra Reddy ...Petitioner And The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K. Ananda Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 : Asst. Government Pleader for and 6 Revenue Counsel for respondent No.2 : Asst. Government Pleader for Home Counsel for respondent No.5 and 7 : Asst. Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.8 : Sri V. Venkataramana The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, C. J.) 1) This is a public interest litigation wherein it has been alleged that respondent No.8 has put up a construction on the land belonging to the government. It has been further alleged that the official respondents are not taking any action for removal thereof. 2) In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the Tahsildar, Nellore has filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in question belongs to the government, whereas respondent No.8 has filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in question does not belong to the government, but it belongs to him and he has given details as to how he got title over the said land. 3) The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has submitted that after the petition was filed and attention of the District Collector was drawn to the above fact, on 6th September, 2009, by a beat of tom tom, the public at large has been informed that land to an extent of Ac.12.18 cents covered under Sy.Nos.51-A, 52 and 53 belongs to the State and needful was being done for taking possession of the land in question. Be that as it may, the District Collector, respondent No.3 herein, shall look into the matter and if the land, in fact, belongs to the government, he shall initiate action in accordance with law to take possession of the land in question. Needless to say that it would be open to respondent No.8 to establish his right over the land in question before the concerned authority. 4) The order dated 5th October, 2009 restraining respondent No.8 from creating third party interest in the land in question is vacated and it would be open to the official respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 5) Subject to the above directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 19th October, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS