THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21848 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner – M/s.Krishnalanka Agricultural Labour Harijana Field Labour Cooperative Society, seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with its possession and enjoyment over the land of an extent of Ac.0.72 cents covered by R.S.No.42/2 of Malapalli, Patamata, Vijayawada, as illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently, direct the respondents not to take any step for dispossession of it or its members from the land referred to above. It is stated that petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and was in possession and enjoyment of the land nearly about Acs.100.00 in R.S.No.30, Ac.0.39 cents in R.S.No.40/2, Ac.1.53 in R.S.No.42/2 and Ac.0.27 cents in R.S.No.44 in Vijayawada, Krishna District. It is further stated that there was a grant of lease to an extent of Acs.10.00 of land in favour of the petitioner and when there was a threat of eviction by the land grabbers, it approached the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, by filing O.S.No.1039 of 2004 against the revenue authorities and the suit was decreed. It is also stated that substantial portion of the allotted land was washed away in Krishna Floods due to erosion in the last decade and the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.72 cents of land. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the respondents are not having any authority or jurisdiction, they are trying to interfere with the possession of the said left over piece of land admeasuring Ac.0.72 cents. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the second respondent – Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, represented by the Commissioner. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that as per the survey records, land of an extent of Ac.0.72 cents in R.S.No.42/2 at Patamata Village is classified as Lanka Bhoomi, a poramboke, and originally, it belongs to the Government and was handed over to Vijayawada- Guntur-Tenali- Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (VGTM UDA) in 1988 and it was under their possession. It is further stated that Ac.0.18 cents of land was conveyed by VGTM UDA to the answering respondent, which in turn, used it for constructing a community hall and in remaining land of an extent of Ac.0.55 cents, the answering respondent constructed an Elevated Level Service Reservoir to cater the drinking water needs at Ramalingeswara Nagar and Ranigari Thota areas. It is specifically stated that Ac.0.72 cents of land was never in possession of the petitioner and the land, which is being claimed by it is not the one, which is in its possession. Although it is the case of the petitioner that its members are in possession and it was granted lease about Acs.10.00 of land, the second respondent in the counter-affidavit, admitted that Acs.10.00 of land was washed away in Krishna Floods due to erosion in the last decade and pleaded that still, it is in possession of remaining Ac.0.72 cents of land. In view of the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent that possession of the petitioner is seriously disputed, and originally, the Government land was allotted to VGTM UDA, which in turn, conveyed the land to the second respondent for the purpose of construction of community hall and water reservoir, except there are factual disputes, there is no other aspect, which requires to be considered in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of denial of possession of the petitioner over the land in question and further, the allotment of it is not supported by any document in favour of the petitioner, it is not possible for this Court to decide the claim of the petitioner with regard to left over piece of Ac.0.72 cents of land. In any event, very relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be the subject matter of the writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni