IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25174 of 2009 Between: Burra Chandraiah ..... Petitioner AND Tahsildar, Bhoopalpally Mandal, Warangal District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Mallesham Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri A. Prabhakar Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25174 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard Sri G. Mallesham, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao for the impleaded respondent i.e., respondent No.3. The petitioner claims to have been granted patta in respect of Ac.4.06 guntas in Sy.No.287/3 of Jangaid Village, Bhoopalapally Mandal, Warangal District. He filed the present writ petition with the grievance that the official respondents have been interfering with his possession though the patta granted in his favour is in force. In the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has tampered with the record by adding Ac.4.00 as against the extent of Ac.0.06 guntas, which alone was granted to him under the patta and that his application for correction of entries in the revenue record having been dismissed, the appeal filed by him before respondent No.2 is pending. It is therefore pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to protection of this Court. Inasmuch as the appeal filed by the petitioner for correction of entries in the revenue record is pending before respondent No.2, this Court is not inclined to give any finding on the respective pleas of the parties regarding the actual extent granted to the petitioner. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to hold the extent of Ac.4.06 guntas, they are free to take appropriate action against him for his eviction in accordance with law. So long as the petitioner is in physical possession of the property in question, he cannot be evicted without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction of the petitioner, if they are of the opinion that he is not entitled to retain in possession of the abovementioned extent of land or any part thereof. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.32797 of 2009 and WVMP.No.533 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.10.2010 ES