THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.14134 of 2002 June 15, 2010 Between: D.Subrahmanyam Naidu, S/o.Krishnama Naidu And others … Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.14134 of 2002 ORDER: The four petitioners filed the instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to dispossess them from their houses situated at Alipiri Road, Tirupathi, without due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary and for consequential direction. Petitioners allege that they are landless poor persons eking out livelihood by working as coolies. They occupied small extents of lands comprised in T.S.No.43/3 in Tirupati Revenue Village. Subsequently they constructed small houses. Recognising their long possession, first respondent issued house site patta bearing No.THS 1298/2/1402, 1292/1/1402 etc., dated 24.12.1992, assigning an extent of Acs.0.02 each to petitioners 2 and 3 and Acs.0.05 to fourth petitioner. It is also alleged that first petitioner was also assigned similar extent of land. On 27.7.2002 subordinate officials of first respondent allegedly directed petitioners to vacate the houses and apprehending coercive dispossession, they filed instant writ petition. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 02.8.2002 passed interim orders directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners. The interim order was subsequently vacated by order dated 30.8.2004 made in W.V.M.P.No.894 of 2004 inter alia for the reason that counter averments remained uncontraverted and that petitioners failed to file reply affidavit denying the counter averments. In the counter affidavit filed on 19.3.2004 along with W.V.M.P. No.894 of 2004, while stating that the land in survey No.43/3 was never assigned to petitioners, that it is open land and that petitioners are not in possession of the land as alleged, it is stated as follows. … … The petitioners are never in occupation/possession of the lands stated supra. It is submitted that the petitioners relied on fabricated and false documents and trying to grab the valuable Government land in T.S.NO.43/3 situated in heart of the Tirupathi Town. … … It is submitted that the one Sri P.Satya Murthy who earlier worked as Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban from November, 1990 to March, 1993 and who is presently working as Superintendent in the office of the District Water Management Agency, Chittoor has given an affidavit categorically denying that he has not issued house site pattas for the plot numbers mentioned by the petitioners during his period as Mandal Revenue Officer and alleged pattas do not bear his signature. He has also stated that the pattas possessed by the petitioners are forged documents (The copy of the affidavit is filed herewith as Annexure No.2). … … It is further submitted that the genuine house site pattas issued from the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban does not bear three sub-divided columns as THS 1298/2/1402, 1292/1/1402 etc., but only two sub divisions appear one relating to the Sl.No. of Patta and the other being the Fasli or year in which the pattas have been issued. The copy of the Patta issued in THS No.611/92, Dt.17.6.1992 in favour of one Smt.P.Nagamma is filed herewith as Annexure No.3 to establish the fact that the pattas filed by the petitioners are false and fabricated. As noticed supra, even after the interim order was vacated on the ground that the reply affidavit is not filed rebutting counter averments, reply affidavit is not filed even after lapse of six years. The counsel for petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners are landless poor persons and the allegation that they fabricated documents is not correct. When an allegation is made by the Tahsildar that the petitioners filed fabricated documents and that the person alleged to have issued those pattas has given an affidavit that he never issued those documents, the burden lies on the petitioners to dispel any doubt from the mind of the Court. Petitioners did not make any effort in that direction and, therefore, this Court is convinced that the writ petition filed based on the documents, which cannot be believed. If the petitioners are allegedly poor persons they are given liberty to approach the Tahsildar for assignment/allotment of houses under any of the Government welfare schemes. In this writ petition, no relief can be granted to petitioners. The writ petition, with the above reasons, is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 15, 2010 YS