THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 20631 of 2002 DATE: 18-01-2008 Between : Smt. M.Satyavathi … Petitioner And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO. 20631 of 2002 O R D E R: The petitioner’s husband by name Sri M.V.Ratnam who was an ex-serviceman was assigned Ac.3.00 of land situated in Sy.No.259 of Ravalkole Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by the then Tahsildar of Medchal Taluka, Ranga Reddy District vide proceedings dated 20-10-1982. It is stated that since the petitioner’s husband was suffering from brain cancer and was under treatment at Uppal, he could not continue in physical possession of the land assigned to him. Ultimately he expired on 20-10-1996 and in the meanwhile, the land in question was encroached upon by third parties. After the death of her husband, the petitioner having come to know about the encroachments approached the respondents herein requesting to redeliver the land to her claiming that being the legal heir of the original assignee she is entitled to possession. Pursuant thereto the second respondent called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Medchal. A copy of the Mandal Revenue Officer’s report dated 29-05-2001 has been placed before this Court which shows that out of Ac.3.00 of land assigned to the petitioner’s husband, Ac.2.29 guntas has been occupied by 7 persons and the remaining Ac.0.11 guntas is covered by a road. On the basis of the said report, the first respondent-District Collector informed the petitioner that her request for redelivering the possession cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, no counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents. On a perusal of the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 29-05-2001 it appears that a major portion of the land in question is in occupation of 7 encroachers and some of them are also assigned different extents of land. If that be so, the respondents ought to have taken steps to recover the possession from the encroachers following due process of law and put the petitioner in possession who is the widow of an ex-serviceman in whose favour the land was admittedly assigned. Having regard to the facts noticed above, the action of the respondents in rejecting claim of the petitioner only on the ground that no alternative lands are available is unjust and unwarranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioner for restoration of the land assigned to her husband and to take appropriate steps for removal of the encroachments on the assigned land following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 18-01-2008 KLP