IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2775 of 2001 Between: 1 Simhadri Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Murthy, Pottina Mallyapalem, Chingadeli Mandalam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Shaik Hussain, S/o. Late Shai Fareed, Muslim, Madurvaada, Chingadeli Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheeminipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Sripuram Juncition, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.1:AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.2: SMT. V.PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in their occupation, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.1 and Smt. V.Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. The petitioners in their affidavit claimed that they were granted pattas in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.4.70 cents in Survey No.385/2 and Acs.4.95 cents in Survey No.385/1 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District respectively, under separate proceedings, dated 17.11.1992. It is averred that in 1992, respondent No.1 surveyed the lands and sub-divided the same in their favour and that on 06.01.2001, respondent No.2 with his officials came to the lands of the petitioners and questioned them about their right to cultivate the same. It is further averred that when the petitioners sought to explain them about their right, the respondents have threatened to dispossess them from the lands. Therefore, they filed the present writ petition. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners filed copies of the purported pattas in the sub-division proceedings. The respondents filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, the claim of the petitioners that they were granted pattas was denied and it is stated that the alleged pattas are fabricated ones, which are not reflected in the revenue records. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, while reiterating the stand of respondent No.1 that the pattas are bogus and fake, it is stated that an extent of Acs.141.36 cents of land in Survey No.314 of Kapuluppada Village was handed over to respondent No.2 by the Government for public purpose, namely, development of Sites and Services and an order to that effect was passed by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam on 18.07.1999 and that possession was delivered on 24.09.1999. It is further stated that after taking possession, respondent No.2 has taken up development of the entire extent of the land for the purpose for which it was handed over to it. At the hearing, no one represented the petitioners to question the averments contained in the counter-affidavits of the respondents. As the petitioners failed to controvert the fact that the possession was already delivered to respondent No.2 as far back as 24.09.1999, the prayer in the writ petition, namely, direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners has become infructuous. At any rate, as the respondents have come out with the plea that the purported pattas said to have been granted in favour of the petitioners are fake and fabricated, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate and record a finding on this issue which is required to be decided by a competent Civil Court on appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary to be adduced by the parties. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd MARCH, 2009. kvni