THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25750 of 2001 Dated:27.08.2009 Between: Kapa Rama Sitamma. …Petitioner and Bhadrachalam Town Ship, Rep.by its Commissioner/Executive Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District, And others. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25750 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner’s mother-in-law late Lakshmamma purchased an extent of Ac.1.00 of land in survey No.3 (new survey No.124/3) in Bhadrachalam. Statedly, choultry in the name of Sri Guru Govinda Swamy Mantapam was constructed. It is now known as Saduvula Matam, which is situated behind Sri Seetarama Kalyana Mantapam in Bhadrachalam. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother-in-law purchased an extent of Acs.6.01 under registered sale deed dated 06.12.1944. Thereafter, petitioner’s father-in-law constructed Siva temple and Guru Govinda Swamy Temple in this place, and planted number of trees providing shade to the pilgrims visiting the choultry. It is alleged that some time in 2001 respondents acquired a portion of the land in survey No.124/3 for constructing the bund to protect the town from the floods of Godavari River. Petitioner and her sons gave a representation on 03.10.2001 for payment of compensation. It was alleged that after receiving representation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 appointed respondent No.5 as a contractor to demolish the choultry for the development of township of Bhadrachalam at the instance of respondent No.4. It is alleged that respondent No.5 uprooted the fruit bearing trees and dismantled on 14.12.2001 taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner and her sons. She also alleged that hectic efforts are being made to take over the land and structures without initiating land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess and dismantle the choultry as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit stating as follows. …It is submitted that a flood bank is under construction around Bhadrachalam town for preventing Godavari floods and for formation of flood bank an extent of Ac.1.05 cents has been taken in R.S.No.124/3 since it is classified as Government Poramboke in Revenue records, as such the question of issuing any notice to the petitioner and paying the compensation for the Government land does not arise at all. The question of considering the case of the petitioner for paying the compensation under Land Acquisition Act for the Government land covered by R.S.No.124/3 does not arise. It is pertinent to submit that the Government has taken up a programme for the development of Sri Seetharama Chandra Swamy Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, and the area surrounded by Kalyana Mantapam is being taken up as part of the said programme. The balance land in R.S.No.124/3 is already being taken up for the development of the temple. It is absolutely incorrect to contend that the 5th respondent has threatened the petitioner by saying that temples and Mantapam will be demolished. In this regard it is to submit that Sri Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Devasthanam, Bhadrachalam, wants to take up renovation works of the above said two temples as part of Bhadrachalam temple development programme and as such the averments that the respondents are threatening to demolish the temples is absolutely incorrect and without any material. From the counter averments, it appears, there is a dispute with regard to the land, which was purchased by the petitioner’s mother-in-law, especially, the land comprised in survey No.124/3. The counter does not dispute that before appointing respondent No.5 and before respondent No.5 taking steps for demolition of structures and uprooting the trees, no notice was issued to the petitioner. Her Counsel submits that even in the revenue records the name of the choultry has been mentioned as the enjoyer of the property, and therefore, notice ought to have been given. This Court finds force in the submission. It is axiomatic that even if a private person is allegedly in possession of a poramboke land, such person can be evicted only by following the procedure contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. No such efforts are made by the second respondent. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall not be deprived of enjoyment of her property without initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and respondents shall not interfere with possession of the property of the petitioner with any other structures in the land comprised in survey No.124/3. This does not preclude the second respondent to conduct the enquiry and initiate necessary action, which shall be subject to the proceedings pending before the Settlement Officer under Regulation II of 1970 initiated by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 27.08.2009 vs