THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.28139 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the agricultural land in an extent of Acs.5.00 situated in R.S.No.1/P of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal, without deciding his title and without following due process of law. The petitioner, who is an Ex-Serviceman, worked in the Indian Army from 22.03.1960 to 01.04.1982 and retired from service as Hawaldar. When he was in service, he submitted a representation before the third respondent-District Collector, Visakhapatnam for allotment of land. The third respondent has transmitted the said representation to the second respondent-Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural), who in turn, assigned the above said land in favour of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 22.05.1982. It is stated that since then he is in possession and enjoyment the same. Thereafter, when respondents 1 and 2 tried to dispossess the petitioner from the said land, he approached this Court and filed W.P.No.18558 of 2007 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 11.09.2007 with the following direction: “Following the same, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to make a representation before the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural), with reference to his claim and if such representation is made, the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) is directed to conduct enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the assignment claimed by the petitioner and after ascertaining as to the genuineness, the Tahsildar is directed to take appropriate action. If the assignment is found to be true and genuine, the petitioner is entitled for the relief to which he is entitled under law either for payment of ex-gratia or compensation or for assignment of any alternative land in lieu of the land resumed by the Government. In case if it is found to be not genuine, the Tahsildar is also entitled to take appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to make his representation within a period of four weeks from today and on such representation the Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural), is directed to complete the enquiry within two months thereafter. No costs.” The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.18558 of 2007, without considering his claim and without conducting any enquiry thereon, the respondents published a news in Eenadu Daily News Paper (Local) on 14.12.2008 adverting auction of 130 Residential plots in Yendada Village, which includes the land of the petitioner, scheduled to be held on 28 to 30th of December, 2008 and they are taking steps to dispossess him from the land in question. On 07.07.2008, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the second respondent, on instructions, submitted that the claim of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the D- Form Patta claimed by the petitioner is not genuine one, and the petitioner is not in possession of the same. To the said effect, he has also placed on record the order dated 24.12.2008. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed ‘for dismissal' on 09.07.2010. On 09.07.2010, the matter was directed to be deleted from the caption ‘for dismissal’ and adjourned to “next week”. Accordingly, the matter is listed before this Court on 25.08.2010, on which date, the matter was adjourned to today for orders. Today, when the matter is called, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner is not in possession of D-Farm Patta, and that the D-Farm patta, which the petitioner is claiming, is not genuine patta. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the order of this Court dated 09.07.2010 passed in W.P.No.28178 of 2008, whereby this Court dismissed the similar writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner therein to question the order, dated 24.12.2008, whereby the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected. In the instant case also the claim of the petitioner was considered and rejected by the second respondent by order dated 24.12.2008. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to question the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the second respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 27.08.2010 va