IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18589 of 2002 Between: Shaik Mohsin & another. … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri T.S. Rayulu Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18589 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in restraining the petitioners from removing the sand and stones from their land admeasuring Ac.5.34 guntas in Sy.No.230 of Lingojigudem Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District, as illegal. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to allow them to make use of their land for cultivation by removing the sand and small stones from their land. Heard Sri T.S. Rayulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners averred that their land is in low laying area and due to heavy rainfall, sand and stones got collected over the land. In order to make the land ﬁt for cultivation, the petitioners started removing the sand and stones. When respondent No.3 allegedly restrained the petitioners from doing the same, they filed the present writ petition. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, he denied the claim of the petitioners that they are the pattadars of land admeasuring Ac.5.34 guntas in Sy.No.230 and stated that they have not got their names mutated in their favour, as the revenue records showed Smt. Cheerika Mallamma wife of Sathi Reddy as pattadar and cultivator. He further denied the allegation that the land is covered with sand and stones. Respondent No.3, however, stated that the petitioners never approached him with a request to remove the sand and he denied the petitioners’ allegation that they were restrained from removing the sand from the land. He stated that in view of the ban on movement of sand, the petitioners cannot transport the sand removed from the land. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Division Bench order dated 22.07.2002 of this Court in WA.No.1064 of 2002, wherein it held as follows: “In view of the decision of the Apex Court in an identical matter in B. Dass vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1976 SC 1393) the appellant – writ petitioner, namely, Gundla Anantha Reddy, who claims to be the pattadar of the land in question, is permitted to remove the sand and keep it at the corner of his land and ask the authorities to remove the same. He cannot be permitted to dispose of the same as his rights are conﬁned to only carrying out agricultural operations. We make it clear that the appellant – writ petitioner cannot sell the said sand. If there is any violation in this regard, it is always open to the respondent – authorities to bring it to the notice of this Court for passing appropriate orders.” As held by the Division Bench, if the land belongs to the petitioners, the respondents cannot obstruct the petitioners, from removing the sand and stones, deposit them at one corner of the land and request the authorities to remove the same. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the order of the Division Bench referred to supra. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 15.11.2008 ES