IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.7189 of 2008 Between: S. Guru Murthy, s/o Late Guruvulu, r/o Door No.5-92, Chandrampalem village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, VUDA, Visakhapatnam. 2. The State of A.P., rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Tahasildar, Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Rural, 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ o f mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.147/1 of Chandrampalem Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and violating the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said property and to pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mr. M. RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: - On earlier occasion when the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.5229 of 2008, this Court dismissed the said writ petition, as the statement of the petitioner that the respondent authorities have come to the land in question, is only a mere apprehension. Now the very same petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition stating that the officials of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have again visited the land in question on 29-03-2008 and trying to dispossess him from out of the land in question. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned standing counsel for third respondent. 3. It is not known as to whether the petitioner is having any valid title. No doubt, the petitioner filed two pahanies to establish that he is in possession of the said land. The said possession does not confer any title over the land in question. If really the land in question is required for any public purpose as provided for under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and if the petitioner establishes his title, the respondent authorities may evict him only after initiating proceedings under the Act. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA Dt.02-05-2008 GLV ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER Copy to: 1. The Land Acquisition Officer & Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, VUDA, Visakhapatnam. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Tahasildar, Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam Rural, Visakhapatnam District. 5. 2CCs to 6. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}