IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27360 of 2010 Between: P. Veera Reddy & others. ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27360 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners, who claim to be the owners of the lands admeasuring 605, 248, 487 and 254 square yards purchased vide document Nos.5122 of 2006, 2695, 2696 and 2694 of 2000 respectively comprised in Sy.No.456 of Sapavat Thanda, H/o. Pinnaipalem Village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District, field the present Writ Petition feeling aggrieved by the alleged action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in seeking to interfere with their possession by claiming that the said lands were allotted to respondent No.4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that the lands they have purchased are private lands, which have nothing to do with the Government and that their right to enjoy the said lands cannot be impinged upon by any of the respondents without following due process of law. Since the petitioners’ representation made to respondent No.2 did not appear to have yielded any action to prevent respondent Nos.3 and 4 from causing such interference, they filed the present Writ Petition. Having regard to the facts noted above, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to make a representation to respondent No.1, who is the administrative head of the District. If such a representation is made, respondent No.1 shall consider and take a decision as to whether the alleged interference by respondent Nos.3 and 4 is justifiable or not. If on the basis of the material filed by the petitioners, respondent No.1 comes to the conclusion that they are the owners of the lands in question, he shall issue appropriate directions to his subordinate officers including respondent Nos.3 and 4 to refrain from interfering with their possession. Conversely, if it is found that the petitioners are not the owners of the property, he shall communicate his decision to them. Thereupon the petitioners are entitled to approach the competent civil Court for declaration of their title and consequential reliefs. The petitioners are permitted to file such representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till appropriate decision is communicated by respondent No.1, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question, if they are in physical possession of the same. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.34951 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.12.2010 ES