IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8215 of 2009 Between: Smt.Upputuri Susheela W/o.Ramanaiah R/o.Chagollu village Ulavapadu Mandal, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division Kandukuru, Prakasam District 2 The Mandal Revenue officer,Ulavapadu mandal Prakasam 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the Notice issued by the First respondent vide Notice No.7 dated 19.3.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and is without any legal basis and consequently direct the respondents not to take any steps for removal of house constructed by the petitoner in Sy.No.355 admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents in Chagallu village, Ulavapadu mandal, Prakasam District as confirmed by the second respondent vide his proceedings No.Rc/A/192/2005 dated 16.4.2005 with out due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.N.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dt. 19.3.2009 issued by the 1st respondent. The impugned notice intimates the petitioner that she constructed a house with a concrete slab unauthorizedly in a plot in S.Nos. 315 and 320 of Chagallu village, Ulavapadu mandal, Prakashm District, which is a tank poramboke land and that she was directed to remove constructions, failing which the illegal constructions would be removed, as per law. The petitioner asserts to have occupied 2 cents of land in S.No. 355 about 12 years back and raised a thatched house and is residing therein. She further asserts that a Patta certificate was granted to her on 16.4.2005 by the 2nd respondent and she was also allotted 30 bags of cement and some cash by the Housing Corporation for construction of a regular house which she did in June, 2005 and occupied the same. According to the petitioner, on a complaint of one Chanchaiah of the village that she is in illegal possession of land in S.Nos. 309, 311, 315 and 320, which is a tank poramboke, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice. Hence the writ petition seeking an appropriate relief. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is asserted that the land in S.Nos. 315 and 320 of the village to an extent of Ac. 237.80 cents is classified as ‘tank poramboke’. The answering respondent had deputed the Additional Revenue Inspector to inspect the lands and to inform about the encroachments if any. 16 encroachments were found on the land including by the petitioner in respect of 3 cents of land in which a pucca building was constructed. As the Irrigation Department identified the encroachers of the tank bed land, the 1st respondent issued a notice dt. 19.3.2009 to all the encroachers directing them to vacate the Government land on pain of initiation of appropriate action. As the encroachers failed to comply with the notice of the 1st respondent, the answering respondent furnished a report to the District Collector, Ongole to issue notice under Section 7(1) of the Land Encroachment. With regard to the petitioner’s claim, the 2nd respondent states that the petitioner was granted possession certificate by the then Mandal Surveyor, Ulavapadu on 16.4.2005 for an extent of 2 cents in S.No. 355 of the village but not S.Nos. 315 and 320. In the circumstances, no relief could be granted to the petitioner, is the contention in the counter affidavit. As the respondents have asserted that the petitioner is in occupation of land in S.No. 315 and 320 and not in S.No. 355 in respect of which she was granted possession certificate, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the writ petition. At any rate, what is challenged is a mere notice issued by the 1st respondent. As and when the respondents take action under the Land Encroachment Act or otherwise, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies including by way of a response to such proceedings. No relief can however be granted as prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 30.6.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 8215 of 2009. Dated: 30.6.2009.