THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8960 of 2007 (Dated : 26-07-2010) Between: Anasuri Satyanarayana S/o late Krishnayya Visakhapatnam Urban Mandal, Visakhapatnam District …Petitioner A n d The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8960 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Anasuri Satyanarayana assailing the action of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority-2nd respondent in taking forcible possession of his land to an extent of Acs.4.80 cents in Kommadi village in Visakhaptnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam without following the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. The petitioner claims that an extent of Ac.4.80 cents in Survey No.48/P of Kommadi village in Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam has been assigned to him under Ex- Service Man quota in accordance with the Board Standing Orders in Proceedings DR No.264/94 dated 01.12.1994. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued pattedar pass-book and title deeds in his favour, vide Patta No.238 dated 01.11.2000. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is contemplating to dispossess him from the land in occupation without following due procedure of law. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 30.4.2007. Respondents 1 and 3 filed counter affidavit. Mr. M.S.N.Swamy, Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Mandal has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the total extent of Survey No.48 is Ac.1-21 cents and it is classified as `Poramboke’, and therefore, grant of Ac.4.80 cents in Survey No.48/P does not arise. Though various other contentions have been raised in the counter affidavit, I am not inclined to deal with the same in view of the order proposed to be passed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition apprehending that the 2nd respondent may dispossess him from the land in his occupation. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on instructions, reports that the 2nd respondent is not contemplating to acquire the land in Survey No.48. 7. Such is the statement made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents are contemplating to dispossess him from the land in his occupation without following due process of law has no substance. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 26-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8960 of 2007 (Dated : 26-07-2010)