IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.25143 of 2000 Between: Noel Philip Francis. … Petitioner And: Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its District Collector, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Sekhar for Sri P.Venu Gopal. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 i.e., Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Secunderabad Mandal at Marredpally, in removing the construction material belonging to the petitioner meant for repairs of his property bearing No.10-5-525 of Sainagar, North Lalaguda, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner claimed that he became the owner of the property admeasuring 226.7 Sq. yards in Plot No.32/A comprised in Survey No.844/13 and 844/4 of North Lalaguda, Tukaramgate, Secunderabad under a Will Deed (Testament) dated 2-11-1987. The respondents initiated land-grabbing proceedings in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad- cum-Special Tribunal under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short “the 1982 Act”) initially against the petitioner’s father and some others. The said case was withdrawn. When the petitioner stored construction material in front of his house, respondent No.2 took away a part of the said material by claiming that the said property belongs to the Government. The petitioner, therefore, ﬁled this Writ Petition assailing the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with his possession of the said property. Respondent No.2 ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, in which he averred that the land bearing Survey No.844/13 admeasuring Ac.19.14 guntas was classiﬁed as Government poramboke as per the initial survey conducted in the year 1908 and the revision survey held in 1949. He further stated that under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, if a person is aggrieved by the entries made in the records on the basis of survey, he is entitled to ﬁle an application for correction of such entries under Section 87 of the said Act within two years; that no steps were taken by any one for correction of entries; that the town survey of Twin Cities conducted in the year 1967, including survey of the Malkajgiri village, was notiﬁed under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (for short “the 1923 Act”) in the year 1972 and even according to these entries the land in question is classiﬁed as Government land; and that if any person is aggrieved by the said entries made in the Town Survey Land Record, he will have to ﬁle a civil suit under Section 14 of the 1923 Act within a period of three years, but no such suit has been ﬁled. Respondent No.2 speciﬁcally asserted that the petitioner encroached the Government land to the extent of 226.7 Sq. yards in Survey No.844/13 of Malkajgiri village, corresponding to T.S.No.18/P, Block-G, Ward No.132. It is further stated that land grabbing cases were ﬁled against the encroachers, but due to the fact that adequate evidence was not furnished along with them, the same were withdrawn and fresh cases are being ﬁled against the encroachers of survey No.844/13 of Malkajgiri village. He further stated that in the guise of repairs, the petitioner started construction on major portion of the land in question by way of raising pillars on the rear and front side of the house, and, in order to protect the Government property, he interfered with the construction work in progress. The fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question is not in dispute. While the petitioner asserts that he inherited the property from his father, who got the same under a registered gift settlement deed dated 18-7-1981, the respondents claim that the property is a Government poramboke vested in the Government. Assuming that it is a Government land, the respondents cannot highhandedly interfere with the possession of the petitioner as they are entitled to invoke the relevant statutory provisions, such as A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1905 or the 1982 Act. As admitted by respondent No.2, such proceedings were already initiated under the 1982 Act and the same were withdrawn on the ground that they are intending to ﬁle fresh proceedings. In the face of these admitted facts, the act of respondent No.2 in highhandedly interfering with the possession of the property of the petitioner cannot be appreciated or approved by this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the above-mentioned property. However, liberty is given to them to initiate appropriate proceedings in law to recover possession from the petitioner after establishing that the said property belongs to the Government and is not the private property of the petitioner. ------------------------------ ------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.04-8-2008 MNR