THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5974 of 2008 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for consideration and being disposed of by this order. In the writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess her from the patta land admeasuring Ac.0.99¼ cents covered by R.S.No.250 situated at Velugubanda Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid piece of land was originally owned by her late husband and patta stood in his name. After his death, it was devolved on her and she is being continued in possession as pattadar. It is stated that on the ground that the said piece of land is required for house-sites, the respondents are taking steps to dispossess her as otherwise than due process of law. A counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 – Sri Syamalamba Ammavari Temple, Velugubanda Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the land admeasuring Acs.4.02 cents covered by Survey No.250 belongs to Sri Syamalamba Ammavari Temple. While so, the husband of the petitioner managed to transfer the land in question on his name. It is also stated that the land being claimed by the petitioner belongs to the temple and the petitioner, who is not in possession of the same, filed this writ petition with false allegations. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the first respondent, on instructions, that the land in question belongs to the second respondent temple as it was originally recorded in the name of the second respondent but the husband of the petitioner got transferred the same by misrepresentation, as such, patta issued in his name was already cancelled and the land was restored in the name of the temple. It is also submitted that no steps are being taken for acquisition of aforesaid land for any other purpose. Though the petitioner is claiming the land in question as a successor in interest, as it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the patta itself is cancelled and entire land is restored in the name of the second respondent temple showing as a pattadar, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. As the cancellation proceedings are not challenged by the petitioner, granting liberty to her to question the same, if she is aggrieved, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th JUNE, 2011. kvni