IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3195 of 2005 Between: 1 K. Damodar Reddy S/o Ranga Reddy, R/o H. No. 1-8-100/1, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, rep by their GPA Holder K. Veera Raghava Reddy, S/o K. Agi Reddy R/o 6-1-190, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. 2 K. Srikanth Reddy S/o K. Damodar Reddy, R/o H. No. 1-8-100/1, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad, rep by their GPA Holder K. Veera Raghava Reddy, S/o K. Agi Reddy R/o 6-1-190, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Collector, Ranga Reddy district Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Serilingampally Municipality rep by Commissioner Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority rep by Vice Chairman Begumpet, Hyderabad. ...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 a Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the petitioners possession over the lands situated in Sy. No. 277 at Gangaram Village/Chandanagar, Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring ac. 4-09 guntas without due process of law as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India since the same is done without issuing any proceedings and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3195 of 2005 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Heard Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners’ possession over the land in Survey No.277 at Gangaram Village, Chandanagar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district admeasuring Acs.4.09 guntas without due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that following the joint survey conducted by the Irrigation and Revenue authorities, boundaries of the land in question, which is known as ‘Shikham land’, were fixed and as per the survey, an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas falls within the FTL of Pedda cheruvu. It is further stated that when no water is available within the FTL area, the pattadar can be allowed to carry on agricultural operations; but he does not have any right to change the nature of the land by disturbing the FTL of the tank. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, the GPA holder of the first petitioner denied any knowledge of the part of their land coming within the FTL level of Pedda cheruvu. He also denied the allegation that the land under submergence is being converted into plots. He specifically stated that if the petitioners want to convert the land into house sites, they would do so in accordance with law. Though the parties are at issue on the question whether the part of the land belonging to the petitioners falls within the FTL area or not, I am not inclined to go into the said issue in this Writ Petition because the same falls in the realm disputed questions of fact. Since the petitioners specifically avered that they have not so far converted the land into plots and that if they intend to do so, they will seek prior permission, so long as the petitioners do not convert the land in question into plots, the respondents shall not interfere with the agricultural operations. As held out by the petitioners, if they intend to convert the land into house sites, they can do so only by obtaining prior permission in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.4317 of 2005 is also disposed of. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 12th June 2008 RRB