IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 3906 of 2008 Between: Polu Sivamma W/o.Subbarayudu R/o. Ramachandrayapalli Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugua, Kadapa District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mylavaram, Kadapa 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 writ, order or direction particularly writ of Manamus directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from her house in Plot No.1 situated in S.No. 138/2 of Ramachandrayapalli Village,.Mylavaram Mandal by declaring the high handed action of respondents in demolishing part of the house of petitioner on 20-2-2008 as illegal, and arbitrary and to award damages as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to dispossess her from house in Plot No.1 situated in S.No. 138/2 of Ramachandrayapalli Village,.Mylavaram Mandal by declaring the high handed action of respondents in demolishing part of the house of petitioner on 20-2-2008 as illegal and arbitrary and to award damages. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been allotted house site vide File No.B/47/24, dated 05.03.2004 of an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.148 of Ramchandrayapalli, Mylavaram mandal. It is stated that instead of showing the Sy.No.138, it was shown as Sy.No.148 in the house site patta. It is stated that similar house sites have been allotted to several similarly situated persons viz. P.Neelavathi bearing Plot No.2, P.Nagamma bearing Plot No.3 and P.Ankamma bearing Plot No.4. But, in all the house site pattas, survey number was mentioned as 148 instead of 138. It is stated that no action has been taken against the similarly situated allottees in whose favour Ac.0.03 cents each has been allotted. But, action has been sought to be taken against the petitioner alone for no fault of his. It is stated that in fact the petitioner filed civil suit for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment and in the said suit writ statement has been filed stating that the assignment was made in respect of Sy.No.148 alone, but not in Sy.No.138 and therefore, the petitioner is an encroacher and therefore, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 11.02.2008 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act asking the petitioner to file an application on or before 18.02.2008 and the explanation has been filed by the petitioner stating that the entire records are with the advocate and he is not readily available for production of the records and therefore, a week’s time has been sought for, for giving suitable explanation. It is stated that without granting any time, the third respondent has demolished part of the compound wall and attempting to dispossess the petitioner. I am not inclined to express any opinion about the merits of the case as to whether there was any mistake in mentioning the plot number and whether the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in whose favour the house sites were assigned or not in Sy.No.138 or 148. But, I am of the opinion that when the respondents intend to take any action, their action should be uniform without any discrimination. Having regard to the facts of the case, as the petitioner requires some more time for giving explanation and if no final orders have been passed under Section 6 of the Act as on today, the petitioner is permitted to file suitable explanation within one week from today and on filing such explanation, the same may be considered and disposed of by the third respondent. If final orders are passed, the same may be communicated to the petitioner immediately and it is open for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act, but, however so as to take such recourse the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo obtaining as on today for a period of two weeks from today. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:26.02.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}