THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21313 of 2011 Dated 18th August, 2011 Between: J.Devudamma and others …Petitioners And Greater Vishaka Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V.Raghu Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri N.Ranga Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of Acs.5.00 in Survey No.32/3 of Mudusaralova Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam, without following due process of law. The petitioners pleaded that an assignment was made in favour of one J.Appala Swamy, grandfather of petitioner No.1, in the year 1977 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.00 comprised in Survey No.32/3 of the above-mentioned village and that after the death of the assignee, the petitioners, who are his family members, have been enjoying the same jointly. That on 21.07.2011, the respondents came to the said land and informed the petitioners that respondent No.2 has allotted the same to respondent No.1. The petitioners asserted their right over the land in question on the basis of the D-Form patta granted in favour of J.Appala Swamy in the year 1977 and insisted that without following due process of law, respondent No.1 cannot interfere with their possession. Even though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, submitted that the land in respect of which assignment was granted was resumed by order, dated 27.12.1983, by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural and that thereafter, the land was given in favour of respondent No.1 by respondent No.2. The learned counsel placed before the Court a copy of the order of resumption. Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that even after the purported resumption order, the names of the petitioners are reflected in the pahanies, the copies of which are filed. In my opinion, this Court cannot issue a mandamus in favour of the petitioners in the light of the stand taken by respondent No.1 that the land was resumed as far back as 27.12.1983. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the said order, they are entitled to question the same by availing appropriate remedy before the competent forum. On the above premises, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent forum for questioning the order of resumption. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim order, dated 29.07.2011, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.25945 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th August, 2011 VGB