IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17485 OF 2001 Between: M/s Chimakurthy Granites … Petitioner And The A.P.Mineral Development Corporation rep. By its Managing Director And two others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri V.Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 : None appeared The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed for a Mandamus to declare the assignment made by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of Acs.16.25 cents in Survey No.55 of R.L.Puram Village, Chimakurthy Mandal as illegal and void. The petitioner claims right over the above mentioned land through its original owner late Telekepalli Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as “the original owner”). The original owner filed declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ongole, under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short “the Act”). Evidently typographical mistakes occurred in the order passed under Section 8(1) of the Act. On the legal representatives of the original owner approaching the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ongole, the said order was rectified by the said Tribunal, by order dated 18.12.2000, a perusal of which shows that instead of showing Acs.2.25 cents in Survey No.66 and 16.25 cents in Survey No.55, they were shown conversely and accordingly, the order was modified by rectifying the above mentioned defect. As a result, while the extents remained unchanged, the respective survey numbers alone changed. The petitioner claims that in pursuance of partnership deed, it acquired some interest in the above mentioned property of Acs.16.25 cents in Survey No.55. Its grievance is that respondent No.3 granted assignment in favour of respondent No.1 in respect of the said land. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is, inter alia, stated that the original owner did not surrender any land in Survey No.55 of Rajupalem Laxmipuram Village, Cheemakurthy Mandal, Prakasham District. It is further stated that the total extent of Survey No.55 was Acs.285.67 cents, out of which Acs.68.86 cents was surrendered by one T.Laxmi Narasamma; that an extent of Acs.86.50 cents was surrendered by one Guda Venkata Subramanyam and family and that an extent of Acs.37.78 cents was acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. It is further stated that an extent of Acs.86.50 cents was included in the Prohibitory Order Book and that the remaining extent was allotted to respondent No.1. The counter-affidavit gave details as to the survey numbers and the extents of land surrendered by the owners of the land, which clearly show that no part of the land in Survey No.55 was surrendered by the original owner and taken possession by the Government. The petitioner has not filed any reply-affidavit controverting the contents of the counter-affidavit. At the hearing, Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, admitted that the purported proceedings, which are impugned in the writ petition, are not filed. In the absence of filing of the proceedings impugned in the writ petition, the petitioner cannot maintain a writ petition for issuance of a writ of Mandamus. In any event, the petitioner failed to produce any material to show that the original owner surrendered any part of the land in Survey No.55 and that the land which was stated to have been assigned by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.1 forms part of the land in Survey No.55, belonging to the original owner. Therefore, in my considered view, this writ petition is, wholly, misconceived. The petitioner availed a wrong remedy by filing a writ petition. If any part of the land belonging to the petitioner was in occupation of respondent No.1, the appropriate remedy for it is to avail the common law remedy of filing a civil suit in the Court of competent jurisdiction. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th October, 2009 vrn