THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.10212 and 23905 of 2003 COMMON ORDER: The dispute in these two writ petitions is with regard to the land admeasuring Acs.18.52 cents of Peddapasupula Village, Peddamudiam Mandal in Kadapa District. Hence, this common order shall dispose of both the writ petitions. The writ petitions are filed praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddamudiam not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of lands in Survey Nos. 454/1 (Acs.7.51 cents), 384 (Acs.3.15cents) and in Survey No. 1372 (Acs.10.81 cents) by declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the lands as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioners to the extent necessary for disposal of these matters is as follows. The land originally belonged to one Nadigadda Pulla Reddy. He was the maternal uncle of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23905 of 2003. His first wife, N. Subbamma is the paternal aunt of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.10212 of 2003. After coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Land Reforms Act, for brevity), N. Pulla Reddy filed a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Jammalamadugu, the same being C.C. No.35 of 1975, was processed and by order dated 13.9.1993, the declarant was declared as surplus holder to the extent of 0.2087 Standard Holdings. The competent authority initiated surrender proceedings. At that stage, the brothers of Subbamma and others filed appeal, being L.R.A.T.No. 1 of 1994. Their case was that as Subbamma did not beget children, that Pulla Reddy wanted to marry second time and that on 18.5.1994, he executed the registered gift deed in favuor of Subbamma in respect of lands comprised in Survey Nos. 370, 384 and 1372 admeasuring Acs.17.60 cents. They also alleged that Subbamma in turn executed a gift deed in favour of her brothers on 27.3.1984. The L.R.A.T. allowed the appeal on 30.3.1998 holding that Pulla Reddy was a non-surplus holder. It is the case of the petitioners that after the disposal of the L.R.A.T. they are in possession and cultivating the land. Alleging that without initiating any proceedings, the respondents are trying to evict them, they filed a writ petition. The same being Writ Petition No. 20326 of 2002, was disposed of by this Court on 11.10.2002. The following order was passed. The petitioners claim to be the owners of land in S. No.370/1 admeasuring Ac.2.74 cents situate at Peddapasupula (V) Peddamuddium (M), Cuddapah Dist. It is their case that their title has been upheld in various proceedings including the order in L.R.A.T. No.1 of 1994. They complain that the respondents are trying to interfere with their possession. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned G.P. for Revenue. From a reading of the various copies of documents filed by the petitioners, it is evident that their title over the land in question has been recognized. The petitioners also relied upon the judgment in L.R.A.T. No. 1 of 1994 dt. 30th March 1998. The question as to whether the petitioners hold title over the land cannot be undertaken in this writ petition. Be that as it may, when once the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property, the same cannot be interfered by the respondent. If he respondents are of the view that the possession of the petitioners cannot be continued for any other reason, they have to issue necessary notices duly initiating proceedings under the relevant statutes. Without being the same, they cannot resort to interfere with their possession. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land in question except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under law. Writ Petition No.10212 of 2003 is filed within six months thereafter on 26.5.2003 alleging that even after the order of this Court, the Mandal Revenue Officer visited the land on 8.5.2003 and tried to dispossess them. In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddamudiam Mandal, inter alia, it is contended that as Subbamma pre- deceased Pulla Reddy, that the properties she got under the Gift Deed reverted to Pulla Reddy and that as the latter died issueless, the property has to be taken over. In view of the proceedings of the Land Reforms Tribunal declaring Pulla Reddy as surplus holder of the agricultural land, the very right of the petitioners to claim the land is challenged by the respondents. The scope of the writ petition is in a very narrow compass. Therefore, though the learned counsel made submissions with regard to the succession to the property of Subbamma, which she allegedly got under gift in 1944, with reference to Sections 15 and 16 of Hindu Succession Act. This Court is not inclined to go into that question. Indeed, as observed by this Court in Writ Petition No.20326 of 2002, the question of title cannot be gone into in the writ petition. The petitioners have to agitate the matter before the appropriate common law Court by filing a Suit for declaration. Further even the respondents cannot on their own decide the right of the petitioners to succeed to the property of Pulla Reddy under the gift deed and/or as adverted to in Writ Petition No. 23905 of 2003 also. These are all the maters which need to be appreciated after proper evidence is let in. However, if the petitioners are in possession of the land as alleged by them, the respondents cannot dispossess them without issuing notice under Sections 10(3)(4) and (5) of the Land Reforms Act and under Rules 7 and 8 of A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. Be it also observed that if the petitioners’ possession is treated as encroachment, even then the respondents cannot high-handedly dispossess the petitioners by adopting coercive methods. Due process of law has to be followed. To that extent, this Court is willing to countenance the submission of the counsel. In the result, the above writ petitions are disposed of subject to the observations and directions as hereinabove. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) 2nd December, 2010 pnb