IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27597 of 2008 Between: 1 M.Subramanyam S/o.Late M.Natecha Reddy R/o. Bandarlapally (V) Gatta (P), Puttur (M), Chittoor District. 2 M.Mani S/o.Late M.Natecha Reddy R/o. Bandarlapally (V) Gatta (P), Puttur (M), Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The Tahsildar, Puttur (M), Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in dispossessing the Petitioners from the land in Sy.No.162/6 admeasuring Ac.3-76 Cts. of Nesanur (V), Puttur (M) Chittoor District., as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violates Art. 14, 19 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner from the DKT Patta land and pass any further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.N.ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27597 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioners filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in dispossessing them from their land admeasuring Acs.3.76 in survey No.162/6 situated at Nesanur Village, Puttur Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. They also seek consequential direction to respondents not to dispossess them. It is their case that first petitioner’s father – husband of second petitioner, late Muduru Natecha Reddy was assigned said land vide DKT No.143/4/92 1392 fasli in 1982. After his death, petitioners are in possession and are cultivating the land. They allege that without giving notice respondents are attempting to reassign the land to third parties. Apprehending that they may be dispossessed, petitioners filed instant writ petition. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). Whether first petitioner’s father was assigned subject land in 1982 and whether petitioners are still in possession of land are the questions which are to be decided by second respondent. If petitioners are in possession of the land as alleged and are not already dispossessed, it is needless to mention that respondents cannot dispossess them without following due process of law as held by this Court in Dammalapati Ramalingam v District Collector, Khammam District[1]. If assignment of land is true as held by larger Bench of this Court in LAO-cum-RDO, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyd v Mekala Pandu[2], petitioners would be entitled for compensation as is payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19th December, 2008 GHN To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2 The Tahsildar, Puttur (M), Chittoor District. 3 2CCs to GP for Revenue 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} [1] 2006(6) ALT 299 [2] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)