THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5508 OF 2010 Date: 10.03.2010 Between: D. Sanyasi Rao. … Petitioner And The Government of A.P. rep., by its Secretary (Revenue) and three others … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5508 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri R.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Venugopal, Learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent – Devastanam, and, at their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner claims to be the owner and to be in possession of an extent of 275 sq. yards in Sy.No.91 in Sai Madhavanagar Layout of Vepaguntla Village, Pendurthi Mandal, having purchased the said extent under the registered sale deed dated 28.08.1992 from the original owner. Sri R.Narasimha Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has constructed a building on the said land and he is in exclusive possession thereof. The grievance of the petitioner, as is evident from the averments filed in support of the writ petition, is that the officials of the fourth respondent – Devastanam had come to his house on 08.02.2010 to take measurements; on enquiry they had informed him that, since the land belonged to the Devastanam, they were going to take possession of the house; and, if anybody resisted, they would demolish the structure. When the matter was listed on 09.03.2010, Sri V. Venugopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent, sought time to obtain instructions. Today, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that the officials of the fourth respondent – Devastanam had gone over to the petitioner’s house on 08.03.2010 only with the intention of carrying out a preliminary survey thereof in order to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987); the petitioner would be evicted from the lands belonging to the 4th respondent only in accordance with, and in compliance of, Section 83 of Act 30 of 1987; and no action would be taken for demolition of the structure without putting the petitioner on notice and without giving him an opportunity of being heard. In as much as the fourth respondent intends to take action to evict the petitioner only in accordance with law, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. Needless to state that, in case the fourth respondent – Devastanam does not adhere to the assurance given on their behalf by the learned Standing Counsel, it is always open to the petitioner to question the same in appropriate proceedings. Subject to the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 10-3-2010 Note: Furnish copy by Monday B/o Usd/asp