IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO: 12684 of 1997 Between: Trirumala Raju Satyanarayana Raju, Aged 25 years, S/o. Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, R/o. Muchimilli, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. .... PETITIONER AND 1. Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Rayavaram, East Godavari District. 3. Executive Officer, Chelluru Gram Panchayat, Chelluru, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to allot the land in Sy.No.216 to an extent of 1.10 acres in Chelluru Village, Rayavaram Mandal to third persons and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land in Sy.No.216 to an extent of 1.10 acres in Chelluru Village, Rayavaram Mandal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.S.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE S.NAGESWAR REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Shakeera, the counsel representing the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The writ petition is filed praying to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to allot the land in Sy.No.216 to an extent of Ac.01-10 cents in Chelluru Village of Rayavaram Mandal to third persons and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land in Sy.No.216 to an extent of Ac. 01-10 cents in Chelluru village of Rayavaram Mandal and to pass such other suitable orders. It is stated that the writ petitioner purchased the said land by virtue of a sale deed, dated 05-05-1994. No doubt, several other details relating to the boundaries and the interference by certain parties had also been averred in detail. The main grievance appears to be that the respondents had not initiated any proceedings and had not conducted any enquiry nor they had issued any notices to initiate the action of taking possession of the land of the writ petitioner. It is also stated that the writ petitioner is a poor agriculturist and with great difficulty, he purchased the said land and is eking out his livelihood depending upon the said land. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue would contend that the writ petition is filed only on apprehension and, in fact, no action had been initiated in this regard. In the light of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “Respondents 1 and 2 to put the petitioner on notice and conduct an enquiry and further proceed in the matter, in the event they require to do so. Till then, status quo as on today shall be maintained.” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ 15.02.2005 Lrkm. To 1. The Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rayavaram, East Godavari District. 3. The Executive Officer, Chelluru Gram Panchayat, Chelluru, East Godavari District. 4. 2 CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court Buildings, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. 2 CD copies.