IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 26854 of 2007 Between: Smt. A.P. Sunitha W/o Sri D. Yellamanda Rao R/o Flat No. 342-B, 9th block, Janapriya Apartments, Miyapur, Hyderbad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy district, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad., 2 the Revenue Divisional Officer (West) Ranga Reddy Ashoknagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Tahsildar, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, direction or orders, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaringthe action of the Respondents herein in seeking to demolish the structure and dispossess thepetitioner from premises bearing No. 5-76/2, admeasruing 1000 sq. yds. in Sy.No. 182, Lucky Nagar, Doolapally, Village, Qutubullapur mandal, R.r. District as illegal, arbitrary violative of Principles of natural justice under Article 300- A of the Constitution of India and issue consequential direction directing the Respondents not to interfere withthe possession of the said property and pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : . ORDER: The petitioner seeks an interdictory order to the respondents not to demolish the structures and dispossess her from the premises bearing No. 5-76/2, admeasuring 1000 sq. yards in S.No. 182, Lucky Nagar, Doolapally village, Qutubullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property under a registered sale deed dt.27.09.2005 from one Battula Pitchaiah. It is further pleaded that the petitioner’s vendor purchased the property in question under a registered sale deed dt. 17.7.1996 from G.Shankaraiah and others. The petitioner’s vendor made some constructions after obtaining sanction from the Grampanchayat in the year 1998. When the authorities were trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s vendor, Battula Pitchaiah filed W.P.No. 10851 of 2005 seeking an appropriate direction. The writ petition was disposed of with an observation that the respondents cannot interfere or dispossess Battula Pitchaiah except in accordance with the due process of law. The petitioner’s complaint is that notwithstanding the order of this Court in W.P.No. 10851 of 2005, the 3rd respondent along with the Deputy Tahsildar and the Revenue Inspector came to the property on 12.12.2007 and threatened to demolish the existing shed and take possession of the property by dispossessing her. It is pleaded that the shed is encircled with a compound wall and a gate. It is further pleaded that the respondents threatened the petitioner to vacate by 15.12.2007 failing which they would evict her forcibly. The petitioner states that no notice or opportunity is given or any proceedings initiated under any law for her eviction. In the circumstances, the writ petition is filed seeking the relief already adverted to. This Court by an order dt. 14.12.2007 directed maintenance of status quo. In the counter affidavit sworn to by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Qutbullapur mandal, Ranga Reddy District, it is pleaded that according to the revenue records i.e. Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 of Doolapalli village, the land in S.No. 182 admeasuring Ac. 15.07 cents is classified as Sarkari and was assigned to seven landless poor persons including to one Shankaraiah and others, by the order of the Tahsildar, Medchal dt. 29.6.1961. The assignees violated the assignment rules and sold out the properties assigned to several persons through registered sale deeds and the purchasers have taken up some constructions on the land. Thereupon, notices in Form No.1 under the provisions of the A.P. Assignment of Lands (POT) Act, 1977 were issued to the assignees or their legal heirs as well as the possessors. After a detailed enquiry, by an order dt.4.11.1998 the Government resumed the land and possession was also taken over on 31.10.1998. Having pleaded in a preceding paragraph in the counter that possession was taken by the Government, in the penultimate paragraph, it is pleaded per contra that the answering respondent has not tried to demolish the existing structures and only field staff had warned the writ petitioner not to take up any further construction on the resumed land. From the ambiguous averments in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that no real or effective possession of the property was taken by the State. Mere paper proceedings for possession appear to have been drawn up. From the averments in the counter affidavit, it is also legitimate to infer that the petitioner continues in possession and occupation of the structures on the land in question. Whether she is entitled to continue in possession or her possession is illegal in view of the illegal and prohibited alienation by the original assignee Shankaraiah is a matter for the authorities to determine in appropriate proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. In any event, since the petitioner asserts to continue in possession and the respondent did not categorically plead that she is not in possession, it is incumbent upon the respondent not to interfere with the current possession of the petitioner or dispossess her of the property, except in accordance with the procedure established by law. On the analysis above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner or otherwise interfere with her possession except by initiating proceedings in accordance with law. It is also declared that it is not open to the respondents to go on to the property occupied by the petitioner and threaten her on a regular basis. The respondents are however at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for the eviction of the petitioner, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 26854 of 2007 Dated: 27th April, 2009.