The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27934 of 2011 Date: 13.10.2011 Between: K.Ramanaiah and another ..... Petitioners AND 1.The District Collector, Chittoor District and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N.Subba Reddy for Sri A.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Mr.G.Ramachandra Reddy, SC for TUDA The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in Roc.No.2715/G2/2011, dated 20-09-2011, of respondent No.4, whereby the building permission granted in favour of the petitioners was cancelled. The petitioners also assailed the validity of notice, dated 09-08- 2011, issued by respondent No.3, directing them to vacate the premises comprised in Survey No.46 of Akkarampalli Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, and the endorsement bearing Roc.No.A/723/2011, dated 20-08- 2011, of the said respondent. In the manner, in which this Writ Petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. It will suffice to note that the property purchased by the petitioners is the subject matter of proceedings under the provisions of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). The ryotwari patta, granted by the Settlement Officer, was, eventually, set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment, dated 13-04-2011, in WA.No.1802 of 2005. SLP.Nos.13881 to 13804 of 2011, filed by the petitioners and the original claimants, were dismissed, on 26-09-2011, by the Supreme Court, with liberty to the petitioners to file review petitions in the pending Writ Appeals. In the meantime, respondent No.3 has issued notice, dated 09-08- 2011, calling upon the petitioners to vacate the subject premises and respondent No.4 issued proceedings in ROC.No.2715/G2/2011, dated 20-09-2011, cancelling the building plans approved in favour of the petitioners. At the hearing Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that even though the order of the Division Bench is holding the field as on today, the respondents cannot summarily dispossess the petitioners from the property in their occupation without following the due process of law. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by Lrs and another[1]. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4- Tirupathi Urban Development Authority, submitted that the petitioners have lost the litigation and that, on account of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the title stands vested in respondent No.4 and that the petitioners can no longer be continued in possession of the property in question. As far as the dispute relating to title over the subject property is concerned, as on today, the judgment of the Division Bench in the aforementioned Writ Appeal holds the field. Of course, it is the plea of the petitioners that they intend to file review petitions in pursuance of the liberty given by the Supreme Court. Their grievance, for the present, is, however, confined to the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in seeking to unceremoniously evict them from the possession of the subject property comprising buildings. The fact that the petitioners are in long standing possession of the same is not in dispute. The Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (Dead) by Lrs. (cited supra) held as under: “If the trespasser is in settled possession or effective possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession.” This legal position, which is settled by a long line of judgments, to which reference was made by the Supreme Court, applies in all fours to this case. While, at present, respondent No.4 is entitled to recover possession of the subject property, at the same time, the petitioners cannot be forcibly dispossessed therefrom without following the due process of law. In view of the impugned notice and endorsement issued by respondent No.3, apart from respondent No.4 cancelling the building permission, the petitioners are raising a reasonable apprehension that they may be forcibly dispossessed from the subject property without following the due process of law. This apprehension cannot be ruled out as without any basis. In the light of these facts, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to follow due process of law for taking possession of the property in question subject, however, to the right of the petitioners to file review petitions. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.Nos.34451 & 34452 of 2011, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 13th October, 2011 Note: CC in three days. (B/o) LUR [1] 2004 (1) SCC 769