THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NOs.14557, 14566, 14570 AND 14573 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. Since common question is involved in all the four Writ Petitions, they are taken up together for disposal. 2. For convenient sake, the facts of W.P.No.14557 of 2010 are taken up for discussion. 3. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of these four Writ Petitions, are as under. The petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and in enjoyment of the schedule property i.e., residential house site with compound wall in survey No.31/7 situated at Krishnarayapuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. At the time of purchase of the said vacant land in the year 1992 he enquired with the then Village Munsif, satisfied that the vacant land was Zeryoti land and then, he purchased the said land through sale deed bearing No.1798/1992 dated 05.11.1992 for valuable consideration from Ch.Venkataratnayamma and her husband Veera Kasi Pati Rao represented by their GPA holder Sri Pothuraju Harinath, who got the registered GPA No.804/1992. They initially constructed a compound wall for the purpose of residence. The petitioner has also paid vacant land tax. The vendor Chittuluri Venkata Ratnayamma, W/o. Veera Kasipatirao had acquired a total extent of Ac.0.67 cents covered by survey No.31/7 T.D.No.266 and Ac.0.66 cents covered by survey No.31/8 by way of a registered settlement deed dated 30.06.1955 bearing document No.1791/1955 executed by her mother Tibirisetti Ratnayamma, who got the said properties under a registered sale deed bearing document No.975/1914 dated 19.11.1914. Recognizing the right, title, possession and enjoyment of the vendor of the petitioner, Chittuluri Venkata Ratnam was incorporated in the revenue records i.e., No.3 Account of Pendurthi Mandal, Krishnarayapuram Village. Since 1914, the mother of vendor of the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment and since 1955, the petitioner’s vendor, and from the date of purchase, the petitioner, have been in interrupted possession and enjoyment of the respective property. The petitioner also constructed boundary wall around her respective site in order to protect her property from the encroachers and cattle. But, all of a sudden, official respondents came to the house property and without giving any information, tried to demolish the compound wall by threatening the petitioner and his family members to vacate the house site property without servicing any notice and without following any procedure as required under the law. The petitioner explained the officials about their right, title, possession and enjoyment since 1992 and their vendors’ possession since 1914 and also showed the documents of their right, title, possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. But the officials of the respondents did not go through the said documents and threatened that they would take the possession of the said land from the petitioner and the same would be handed over to the Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The petitioner apprehend that the respondents may come at any moment and take the possession of the lands of the petitioners without having any manner of right, title or whatsoever. The petitioners have perfected their right, title, possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule properties by way of documentary as well as law of adverse possession. Under Section 6 of the ROR Act, a presumption has to be drawn with regard to the entries in the Revenue Record. Every entry in the record of rights shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved and the Government cannot contend that the petitioners are not the owners of the lands in question contrary to entries in record of rights. The highhanded behaviour of the respondents is highly objectionable and without following the procedure laid down under the Act, they are trying to dispossess the petitioner and others. While leaving the place, the respondents openly proclaimed that they would come again with man, machinery and demolish the compound wall. Hence, the Writ Petitions. 4. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 filed counter affidavit stating as under. There is no mention in the Writ affidavit about issuing any notice or order of evicting the petitioner or any attempt is made to demolish the construction if any. It is only his apprehension that necessary action would be initiated by the third respondent and with an abundant caution he approached the Hon’ble High Court with all false and unfounded allegations and obtained an interim order not to dispossess him from the petition schedule land. If at all the petitioner or his vendor has got any case of misclassification of his Zeroti land as Gayalu at the time of conduct of Survey and Settlement operations in the year 1952-53, the petitioner should have approached the Settlement Officer and the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam by filing a settlement claim under 11 (a) of Estate’s Abolition Act with documentary evidence. The petitioner has no cause of action praying to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court. Due procedure of law will be followed by the putting the petitioner on notice if the land of the petitioner is to be resumed to Government or if the petitioner is to be dispossessed. 5. Heard both the sides. 6. There cannot be any dispute that the respondents have no authority to encroach into the site or to demolish the compound wall of a private person, if he is having a title over the property. The grievance of the petitioners is without there being any notice to the petitioners, the respondents are trying to demolish the compound wall with a view to take possession of the land. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit stating that after due process of law would be followed by putting the petitioners on notice if the land of the petitioners is to be resumed or the petitioners are to be dispossessed. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that if the petitioners or their vendors have got any case of misclassification of Zeryoti land as Gayalu at the time of conducting Survey and Settlement operations in the year 1952-53, the petitioners should have approached the Settlement Officer and the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, by filing a settlement claim with documentary evidence. It is open for the petitioners to seek redressal in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, in view of the admission made by respondents 2 and 3 in the counter affidavit, all the four Writ Petitions are disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to follow due process of law before demolishing or taking possession of the land of the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 10th November 2011 RRB