IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12387 of 2003 Between: Saidamma Kandimalla W/o. Kalasani Janardhan Reddy R/o. Nellipaka Banjar, Ashwapuram Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Forest Range Officer, Ashwapuram, Khammam District. 2 Divisional Forest Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District. 3 Conservator of Forests, Khammam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents herein in trying to interfere with and evicting the petitioner from her land admeasuring Ac. 3.26 gts. situated in S.Noo. 190/146, 198/3, Nellipaka Village, Ashwapuram Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal, arbitrary,unreasonable, contrary to law, violative of principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-Act the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondents herein not to interfere with and evict the petitioner from the above said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12387 of 2003 ORAL ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to title and possession in respect of Ac.3.01gunts of land situated in Sy.No.190/146 and another Ac.0.25gunts of land situated in Sy.No.198/3 of Nelliapaka village, Ashwapuram Mandal, Khammam District. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the alleged action of the officials of the forest Department in trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question is arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was assigned to him vide proceedings of the Tahasildar, Manuguru in Rc.No.A4/652/94 dated.29-02-1984 and that he has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the said land exercising his lawful rights. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Forest Range Officer, Ashwapuram Mandal on behalf of the respondents stating that the land in question is a notified reserve forest and even assuming that any patta is granted in favour of the petitioner the same is invalid. It is further contended that the petitioner had illegally occupied the notified reserve forest and the patta produced by him does not contain any details of boundaries and that as a matter of fact planting alignment was made in the land in question by the Vana Samrakshna Samithi spending Rs.29,996/- and the same was destroyed by the petitioner forcibly in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act,1967. The rival claims made by the parties, which involved various disputed questions of fact cannot be enquired into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article.226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is clear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that no notice was served upon the petitioner at any point of time before resorting to recover the possession from him. It is also relevant to note that this Court while directing rule nisi by order dated.26-06-2003 directed that the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner and the said order continued in operation all through. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question without following due process of law. No costs. --------------- G.ROHINI,J 19th March 2009 *TSNR