THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.13112 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner, and to be in possession of an extent of Acs.0.25 cents of land in Survey No.20 of Purushothapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 12.02.1986 from one Sri Gurla Bangari. It is his case that a residential structure and trees are situated thereon, and that the land in question was shown as Service Inam Land in the Revenue records. The petitioner’s grievance is that, on 05.05.2010, officials of the second respondent- Temple visited the petitioner’s land and demolished portions of the compound wall without either putting the petitioner on notice or affording him an opportunity of being heard. Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner had commenced construction of a compound wall with a view to further encroach on the lands belonging to the second respondent; a patta had been issued in favour of the second respondent over the land in question; erection of the compound wall had not only resulted in lands belonging to the second respondent being encroached, but had also resulted in adversely affecting the existing drainage nala; and, in such circumstances, the second respondent was constrained to initiate proceedings to have the compound wall removed. It is not for this Court to adjudicate on disputed questions of title. Suffice to hold that, even if the land is presumed to be the land belonging to the second respondent, as long the petitioner’s possession over the land is admitted, the mode of eviction prescribed under Act 30 of 87 is by recourse to the summary procedure under Section 83 of the Act. Ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land in question, except by recourse to the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of Act 30 of 87 and the relevant Rules. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not either re-erect the compound wall or raise any further structures on the land in question, pending completion of the proceedings under Section 83 of the Act. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 11th June 2010 Note: CC by Tuesday B/O RRB