IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 4388 of 2008 Between: 1 B.Subbaramappa S/o.Chinna Nayakappa R/o.Kundirpi village & Mandal Anantapur District 2 B.Sreenivasulu S/o.Chinna Nayakappa R/o.Kundirpi village & Mandal Anantapur District 3 B.Madaiah S/o.Chinna Nayakappa R/o.Kundirpi village & Mandal Anantapur District 4 B.Gangadhara S/o.Subbaramappa R/o.Kundirpi village & Mandal Anantapur District 5 K.Narayana S/o.K.Maddappa R/o.Kundirpi village & Mandal Anantapur District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional officer, Anantapur District 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Kundirpi Mandal Anantapur 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order direction more particularly issue one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the petitioners respective extent each 2 1/2 cents in Sy.No.257-1A in Kundirpi village & Mandal, Anantapur District without giving notice & with out assigning any reason without following due process of law is illegal, unjust arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners respective extents each 2 1/2 cents in Sy.No.257-1A in Kundirpi village & Mandal, Anantapur District. Counsel for the Petitioner: KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that each of them have been assigned Ac.0.02 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.257-A in Kundirpi village and mandal, Anantapur District and thereafter possession certificates, dated 23-08-2004, were also issued by the 2nd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Kundirpi village and mandal enabling them to get subsidy and loan from A.P.S.H.C.L. for the housing scheme. It is stated that without following due process of law the possession of the petitioners is sought to be dispossessed. 3. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that the house sites are within the specific boundaries and the petitioners have not violated any terms and conditions of the house site patta or the provisions of the A.P.Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). 4. I am of the opinion that even if the petitioners are encroachers the respondents cannot dispossess them without following due process of law. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners without following due process of law. 6. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 29th February, 2008 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}