IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14573 of 2005 Between: 1 Kothuri Veranna Naidu, s/o K.Veera Venkata Rao, r/o Pinapalla Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Tammina Sithamahalakshmi, w/o Gangadhara Rao, r/o Pedapalla, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri.Srinivas, learned counsel representing Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the extent of Acs.5.50 cents in Survey No.127/1 of Pinapalla Village and Ac.0.84 cents in Survey No.41/2 of Chintaluru Village, Alamuru Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal and unconstitutional. In their affidavit, the petitioners averred that on the permission granted by the Government, they planted some coconut trees on the Government poramboke land in R.S.No.35/2E of Chintaluru Village about 25 years back and that the petitioners own Acs.5.15 cents in Survey No.127/1 of Pinapalla Village, apart from having Ac.0.84 cents of land in Survey No.41/2 of Chintaluru Village. The petitioners alleged that the respondents came to the said lands and started taking measurements of the same and that despite objections raised by the petitioners, the respondents did not stop taking the measurements. Apprehending that they will be dispossessed, without following due process of law, they filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 - Mandal Revenue Officer, Alamuru, East Godavari District, it is inter alia averred that the petitioners were granted tree pattas on the Government land in Survey Nos.121/1 and 35/E and the petitioners raised coconut plantation numbering 28 in the said land. It is stated that the sanction for raising tree plantation is subject to two conditions, namely; that the licensees are not conferred with any right over the land and that no fence shall be raised by them except for protecting each plant. It is also stated that the puntha poramboke land in Survey No.35 was sub-divided into 35/1 and 35/2 during the year 1983 and the petitioners have no right over the land except to plant the coconut trees, maintain them and enjoy the usufruct. It is stated that the schedule caste people of Chintaluru Village, Alamuru Mandal, have requested the local M.L.A for formation of metal road on the puntha poramboke leading from Chintaluru Village to the land in Survey No.35/2 which is being used as burial ground and that no action has been initiated for denying the petitioners from enjoying the usufruct of the coconut plants in respect of which they were given tree pattas. He has also taken the stand that the respondents have not initiated proposals for acquiring the private land of the petitioners in Survey Nos.127/1 and 41/2 of Pinapalla Village No reply affidavit is filed controverting the above averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Since the respondents have taken the categorical stand that they are not interfering with the private land of the petitioners and proposing to deny the petitioners of their right to enjoy the usufruct of the coconut plants for which they were granted tree pattas, I do not find violation of any of the rights of the petitioners by the respondents. All that they proposed was to lay a metal road over the puntha poramboke on which the coconut trees planted by the petitioners exist. Since the petitioners were not conferred with any right over the puntha land, except to the extent of maintaining and enjoying the usufruct of the trees planted on the land, they cannot prevent the respondents from laying the road. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 07-07-2005 is vacated and WPMP No.18512 of 2005 and WVMP No.2702 of 2006 are dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 19th June, 2008 vrn