HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.10271 of 2009 Date: September 27, 2011 Between: Balayogiswara Swamy Ashram, Nellore, represented by the President, Board of Trustee Sri M.Chinna Venkata Subba Raju, S/o.Rama Subba Raju, Aged 62 years, R/o.No.501, Rohitha Apartments, Vedayapalem Railway Station Road, Vedayapalem, Nellore, Nellore District … Petitioner And Government of A.P., rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others … Respondents Order: Petitioner herein, an Ashram, has questioned the validity of letter dated 05.05.2009-in the form of a warning, and further notice dated 06.05.2009 issued vide proceedings Rc.B.155/2000, by the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, Nellore Mandal, Nellore District. By the aforesaid proceedings, the 4th respondent issued directions not to enter into the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents covered by Sy.No.46/2 of Vedayapalem village, Nellore Mandal, and not to make any constructions thereon. In the notice dated 06.05.2009, he issued further directions not to alienate the said land to third parties. Petitioner claims that it was established pursuant to a registered trust deed executed in the year 1974, for the social cause of spreading spiritualism and imparting moral values of unity and integrity to strengthen the social fabric of the society and also to feed orphans etc. It is stated that on the petitioner making an application, it was assigned land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents covered by Sy.No.46/2 of Vedayapalem village, Nellore Mandal on payment of market value and put in possession, pursuant to panchanama, on 10.02.1978. It is the case of the petitioner that though the claim of third parties on the said land is rejected by the competent civil Court and also this Court, the impugned warning letter and notice are issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that as it is in possession of the land in question; under the guise of warning and notice, directions were issued not to enter into the land in question, not to undertake any construction thereon and not to alienate the same to third parties. Primarily, the impugned proceedings are questioned on the ground that the 4th respondent-Tahsildar is not vested with the authority and competence to issue such directions. Though several proceedings are referred to, which are pending in civil Courts and also the orders passed by this Court earlier, it is not necessary to refer all those aspects for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent- Tahsildar, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that against the alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner, third parties by name Sri D.Gupta Rao and 32 others filed a revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad, who passed order dated 01.04.1989 cancelling the order alienating the land in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant to such order, possession of the land was taken on 24.04.1989 and retained with the Government. It is further stated that in W.P.Nos.6170 of 1989 and 6352 of 1990, this court, while passing a common order, directed status quo to be maintained with regard to possession of the property until disputes are settled in civil court; but contrary to the same and in violation of the conditions of alienation, the petitioner transferred several plots to third parties; as such, the impugned proceedings are issued. Similarly, it is the case of respondents 5 to 12, who are impleaded pursuant to the order of this Court dated 28.09.2010 in WPMP No.13675 of 2010, that the land in Sy.No.46/2 is a part of Inam Estate of Vedayapalem. It is their case that by virtue of abolition of Estates, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, the aforesaid land was taken over by the Government. It is stated that in the year 1949 the Shrotriumdars felt the need to provide house-sites to villagers and sought permission of the District Collector for conversion of the land into house- sites and permission was granted by the District Collector vide proceedings dated 18.12.1949; thereafter a layout was prepared and house-sites were allotted to several persons and houses were constructed by such allottees except in the piece of land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents, which is the subject-matter of the writ petition. It is further their case that the petitioner, without having any right, got assigned the land in question by political pressure and sold several portions of the same contrary to the orders of this court; as such on their representations and to safeguard the land, impugned proceedings are issued. It is further stated that suppressing pendency of several suits and appeals, this writ petition is filed and interim orders are obtained. Heard Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for Sri G.Purushotham Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri M.P.Chandramouli, counsel for respondents 5 to 12. Although it is the claim of the petitioner that it is in possession of the land in question by virtue of alienation of the same in its favour, the same is denied in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. While it is true that, at first instance, the land in question was alienated to the petitioner, but, at the same time, it is the case of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, as averred in the counter-affidavit, that pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner, Land Revenue, possession of the said land was taken on 24.04.1989 and is retained with the Government. In view of the rival claim with regard to possession and in view of pendency of civil disputes by way of suits and appeals, it is not desirable to record any finding whether the land in question is in possession of the petitioner or the Government. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned directions are issued by the 4th respondent- Tahsildar without any authority of law and jurisdiction and they are in the nature of injunction orders. In the counter- affidavit filed by the Government as well as the impleaded respondents, it is averred that the said public notice is issued only to warn third parties, as the petitioner is selling plots contrary to the orders of this Court and the conditions of grant. A perusal of the impugned proceedings would indicate that the 4th respondent- Tahsildar has issued directions not to enter into the land, not to undertake any construction thereon and also not to alienate the same. In spite of the fact that the petitioner has questioned the competency and jurisdiction of the respondents, the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents does not reveal any source of power which empowers Tahsildar to issue such directions. As it is stated that the petitioner is selling portions of the land to third parties and such directions are issued to warn third parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition clarifying that the impugned proceedings shall be treated as notice to third parties as well as the petitioner, but the same shall not be treated as injunctive directions, restraining entry into the land in question or to make any construction thereon. At the same time, it is also clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to possession as claimed by the petitioner as well as the Government. Needless to observe that the civil suits and appeals pending before the civil courts shall be decided on their own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Writ petition is disposed of with the above clarifications and directions. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 27, 2011 MRR