HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition No.5938 of 2005 ORDER: Muddu Appalakonda and Akki Reddy Lakshmi are the petitioners. They pray for Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in trying to dispossess them from the land in Sy.No. 89/3 in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the order of this Court in WP.No.22763 of 2002 dated 17.04.2003. The petitioners are seeking protection of the Court to an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.89/3 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The averments in brief are that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the petition land in an extent of Acs.3.74 cents in Sy.Nos.89/1 and 89/2. The petitioners refer to the order of this Court in WP.No.1716 of 1999 dated 26.04.2004. They claim right and ownership to petition land, through Will dated 10.10.1988 alleged to have been executed by their mother. The petitioners claim that Muddu Ramulu is their father and the then Raja of Vijayanagaram in the year 1938 granted a patta to him. It is stated that by paying rent to the estate, their father was in possession and enjoyment of property and through the succession referred to above, the petitioners claim ownership and possession of the property. On 10.01.1992, a certificate was issued by the 2nd respondent to the effect that Sy.No.89/3 in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents is classified as ‘dry land’ and not an ‘assigned land’. The Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, issued proceedings L.Dis.No.44/2002/B2 dated 09.03.2002 to the effect that Sy.No.89/3 does not lie in surplus land and falls under general exemption category. On the application made by the petitioners for sanctioning lay out, VUDA issued proceedings Rc.No.355/02/G1 dated 05.10.2002. Lay out is approved on being satisfied that the land is patta land. When the petitioners were about to take up lay out work, the 2nd respondent interfered with the activities and directed the petitioners to stop the same. The petitioners filed W.P.No.22763 of 2002. This Court through order dated 07.04.2003 disposed of the W.P. as follows: “I have gone through the material placed on record. The question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the dispossession of the petitioners from the lands in question. It is needless to mention that no person can be dispossessed without following the due process of law. Even in case of encroacher also, the law contemplates certain procedure to be adhered to. In view of the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow the process of law before dispossessing the petitioners. The petitioners are permitted to raise all objections that are permissible under law.” The nature of protection given by this Court, even at the earliest point of time, is limited. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that an extent of Ac.1.83 cents covered by Sy.No.89/3 of Kurmannapalem Village, was subject to D-form assignment and also cancellation proceedings dated 22.07.1994. Be that as it may, the grievance of petitioners in the present writ petition is that without issuing notice either to the petitioners or by relying upon a proxy notice served on their so called representation, much prejudice is being done and pray for appropriate direction. The second respondent filed counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent as well. It is stated in the counter affidavit that an extent of Ac.2.24 cents in Sy.No.89/1 is assessed waste dry land. An extent of Ac.1.15 cents in Sy.No.89/2 is Atchamma banda. Sy.No.89/1 was sub-divided carving out Survey Nos.89/3 to 89/7 for assigning to deserving persons. The counter refers to assignment in favour of Muddu Ramulu in an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.89/3 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal through patta D.R.No.519/71. The assignment, according to the second respondent, was cancelled through proceedings Rc.No.129/94/S.A. dated 22.07.1994 by the Mandal Revenue officer for alleged violation of assignment conditions. It is stated that Sy.No.89/2 is Atchamma banda and vests with the Government. The stand of respondents is that the total extent of Ac.3.24 cents is in Government possession. It is further stated that the writ petitioner, with an intention to grab the Government land in Sy.No.89/3 which is appurtenant to Sy.Nos.89/1 and 89/2, filed an application to allot Ac.1.83 cents on market value. The first respondent, through orders, R.C.No.743/03 dated 19.05.2003 directed the second respondent to issue endorsement to the petitioner that the land in Sy.No.89/3 is in urban area and it is required for future needs of the Government. It is stated that a notice was issued to 1st petitioner to file his objections and the notice was acknowledged by M.Appa Rao, a representative of the writ petitioner. No reply is filed. As per the instructions of the Government, the District Collector directed protection of all Government lands and accordingly, Sy.No.89/3 is also protected by fixing cement polls. It is stated Sy.No.89/3 was assigned to Muddu Ramulu in DR 51/71 and it was cancelled through proceedings dated 22.07.1994. Therefore, the respondents join issue with the petitioners about the grant of patta by the Raja of Vijayanagaram. With reference to a certificate dated 10.01.1992, issued by the 2nd respondent, or for that matter, the orders of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authorities, it is stated, these exhibits cannot decide the title issue in this matter. On 09.03.2005 the respondents claim to have handed over possession to VUDA for construction of houses to urban eligible poor persons. It is stated that there is no cause of action for the petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners rely upon the certificate dated 10.01.1992 and proceeding dated 29.04.1992 in support of their claim. Strong reliance is placed on order in W.P.No.22763 of 2002. This Court in W.P.No.5869 of 2005 through even date concerning neighbouring survey numbers has considered the dispute between the parties and whether the petitioner therein proved possession to give protection by this Court. The reasoning stated in the said writ petition substantially applies to the present writ petition as well. Further, the petitioners claim to be children of Muddu Ramulu. Repeatedly, the respondents are asserting that as early as 22.07.1994, the D-form assignment in favour of Muddu Ramulu was cancelled and Government has taken possession of the land and it is in their custody. If the petitioners are interested in assailing those proceedings, they ought to have taken appropriate steps at the earliest point of time. It is difficult for this Court to presume possession in favour of petitioners when admittedly, the predecessor through whom they are claiming possession according to Government record was assigned under Darkasth rules and the D-form was cancelled in the year 1994. This Court would have certainly considered the prayer of petitioners, if the petitioners have proved their actual and physical possession over Sy.No.89/3 in the manner stipulated by law. As this is wanting in the case on hand, this Court is not inclined to grant of any relief to the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ______________ S.V. BHATT, J Date: 21.11.2014 KLP