THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24831 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner states that his father was in possession of Ac.1.93 cents of land in survey No.165 of Chennaiahgunta Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, ever since 1940. It is stated that when he approached the then Tahsildar of Tirupathi, in the year 1975, he granted lease in respect of Ac.1.20 cents in favour of himself and for Ac.0.30 cents in the name of his wife, on 03.06.1976. The petitioner submits that, on the strength of such a lease, himself and his wife are in possession of the land. The petitioner filed W.P.No.25296 of 2007 to declare the action (obviously inaction) of the Tahsildar in assigning the land. The writ petition was disposed of, on 09.11.2007 with a direction to the respondents therein not to dispossess the petitioner. This writ petition is filed for identical relief. It is alleged that the respondents are trying to dispossess him. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that at no point of time, the petitioner or his father were in possession of the land and that the alleged lease of the year 1976 is a fabricated one. Copies of relevant records are also filed. Heard Sri Y.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The very prayer in the writ petition is vague and uncertain. It does not reflect the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon the lease said to have been made in his favour in the year 1976. Xerox copy of a mutilated document is filed. Another document filed by him is an extract of statement of sub-divisions in the village. The respondents categorically stated that though the documents are not genuine, this Court adjourned the matter on several occasions to enable the petitioner to disprove the allegations made against him. Nothing is forthcoming. Not a single document, evidencing the possession of the petitioner, is filed. When a specific allegation is made that the lease document of the year 1976 is a fake one, heavy duty rests upon the petitioner to disprove that allegation. Had the petitioner been in possession of the land for such a long time, there would have existed proof, in one form or the other. It has already been mentioned that nothing of that sort is forthcoming, in this regard. Hence, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:27.04.2009. GJ