IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11296 of 2002 Between: Yennamreddi Chinnayya, S/o. Naryudu, R/o. Chinnakalavalapalli Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rambilli, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the urgent Memo No.68/02 dated 13.6.2002 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rambailli as illegal, arbitrary and against Art.300.A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to conduct survey in S.No.43 of Chinnakalavalapalli Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District with District Level Officers. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11296 of 2002 ORDER: Aggrieved by Memo No.68 of 2002, dated 13.6.2002 issued by first respondent directing petitioner to remove encroachment in Government land, petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking invalidation of memo and for a consequential direction to conduct survey in Survey No.43 of Chinnakalavalapalli Village of Rambilli Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. The case of petitioner is as follows. Father of petitioner allegedly constructed a house in Survey No.43, four decades ago. After his death, petitioner statedly in possession of property duly paying housetax to Gram Panchayat for House No.3/1. First respondent issued impugned memo at the behest of political rivals without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, this writ petition is filed. At the time of hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) submits that the land in Survey No.43 is tank bed land, and therefore, construction of a house there at is objectionable. Keeping this in view impugned memo is issued and petitioner approached this Court without giving explanation. There cannot be any doubt that as per Board Standing Orders, tank bed land cannot be assigned nor can be utilised for any purpose other than storage of water. Be that as it is, petitioner’s father allegedly constructed house four decades ago and if that be so, unless and until necessary procedure is followed under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, petitioner cannot be evicted. It shall, however, be open to first respondent to follow due process of law under Land Encroachment Act and pass necessary orders if occupation of land in Survey No.43 is objectionable. For the said purpose, first respondent may also conduct survey in the presence of petitioner. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 07, 2009 YS