THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.14060 OF 2002 Dated 10th September, 2009 Between: S.Jaichandra …Petitioner And Municipal Council and two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Dhanamjaya Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: G.P for Revenue The Court made the following O R D E R: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to take possession of his land in an extent of Acs.3.33 guntas in Survey Nos.258, 259 and 260, situated in Ramakrishnapuram, Malkajigiri Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without initiating any proceedings or issuing notice as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings including his dispossession from the above said land. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the above said land and the same is a private patta land. It is stated that the said land fell to the share of the petitioner in the family partition of the ancestral properties effected in the year 1948. It is further stated that on 26.07.2002, the officials of the respondents have visited his land and started taking measurements of the land and when he objected for the same, they stated that they were directed to take possession of the land under a programme called ‘Neeru Meeru’. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the land in question, without any authority of law. Hence, he filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondents not to interfere with the land in question. Counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Malkajigiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, wherein, while admitting that the land, in question, covered by Survey Nos.258, 259 and 260 admeasuring Ac.1.32 guntas, Ac.1.29 guntas and Ac.0.12 guntas respectively situated at Malkajigiri Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District stands in the name of the petitioner, it is stated that the said land falls within the Full Tank Level (FTL) of Mukkidi Cheru, Ramakrishnapuram of Malkajigiri Village and Mandal. As per Sections 48 to 50 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Irrigation Act, 1357 Fasli (for short ”1357 Fasli”), no non-agricultural activity is permissible in the lands falling within the FTL and it is punishable under the 1357 Fasli. It is further stated that as some of the pattadars of the lands falling within the FTL have converted their lands into plots in violation of the 1357 Fasli and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and sold the plots to various persons and some of the purchasers have constructed houses in the water body illegally, to avoid further conversion of lands into non-agricultural purpose and further constructions over FTL lands, the boundary of the FTL has been marked and as such, it cannot be said that there is interference by the respondents with the land of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the land in question is a private patta land, being used for agriculture purposes, on the ground that it falls within the FTL area, respondents are interfering with it and not allowing the same to be used for agriculture purposes. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that to avoid conversion of lands into non- agriculture purpose and further constructions over FTL lands, the boundary of the FTL has been marked by the respondents to help the public to know about the area falling within the FTL and as such, it cannot be said that there is interference with the land of the petitioner by the respondents. The third respondent, in the counter-affidavit, categorically admitted that the land in question is a private patta land belonging to the petitioner. The respondents cannot interfere with the possession of the petitioner, on the ground that the said land falls within the FTL area, unless the land is notified for acquisition, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for any public purpose,. In any event, even as per the provisions of Sections 48 to 50 of 1357 Fasli, as referred to in the counter-affidavit, the only restriction that can be imposed on the petitioner is that he should not use the land otherwise than for agriculture purposes. Since it is stated in the counter-affidavit that only FTL boundaries are fixed, it cannot be said that there is interference by the respondents. However, the respondents also cannot interfere with the land of the petitioner, if the same is being used for agriculture purpose. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the land in question, if the petitioner uses the same for agriculture purposes. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not use the land for non-agriculture purpose unless he obtains appropriate orders from the competent authority for conversion of the use of the land from agriculture to non- agriculture. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 10th September, 2009 vrn