HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22270 of 2006 Dated:06.11.2006 Between: D.T.Naik. …Petitioner and Mandal Revenue Officer and others. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22270 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a Senior Officer of Indian Police Service, at present working as Additional Director General of Police. He filed this Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Golkonda Mandal, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, in demolishing the shed of the petitioner on the northern side of House No.8-2-685/1/1 in Survey No.24 (part) admeasuring 945 square yards (subject property) of Shaikpet Village, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to the MRO not to interfere with the subject property. The petitioner purchased two portions of house (subject property) admeasuring 472.5 square yards each (total 945 square yards) from Smt.Ramalaxmi Kolluri. In 1992 the petitioner made a representation to the Government to regularize the occupation, and the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.940, dated 11.09.1992. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,41,750/- and complied with other formalities as per the said Government Order. It is alleged that on 17.10.2006, the MRO came with his staff and got demolished the petitioner’s shed on the northern side of the petitioner’s house ignoring various documents produced by him. A counter affidavit is filed by the MRO, Golconda. The allegation that the petitioner’s shed on the northern side of his house is demolished, is denied. Though the fact of regularization of 945 square yards under G.O.Ms.No.940, dated 11.09.1992 is not denied, the MRO states that the petitioner has constructed multi storied building with a compound wall in a total area of 1017 square yards in excess of 945 square yards. It is also alleged that while renovating the building the petitioner has dumped the construction material in the adjacent Government land. When the staff of the MRO tried to remove the material from the Government land, the petitioner requested to allow him to keep the material till the completion of the construction work. The MRO obliged the petitioner with such temporary facility. In the third week of October 2006 during regular visits to the Government lands, the MRO noticed that the petitioner tried to erect tin sheds in the Government vacant land and the deposing respondent resisted the same. The other allegations are denied. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the revised sketch of the land applied for regularization by the petitioner and submits that the petitioner never encroached upon the Government land, and therefore, any interference is uncalled for. Opposing the Writ Petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-T) submits that the petitioner’s building is situated within the compound wall and the MRO never interfered nor demolished any of the structures within the compound wall, though necessary steps are being taken to evict the petitioner from the land admeasuring 60 square metres (72 square yards), which is encroached upon. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court is of considered opinion that the controversy is in a very narrow compass. The petitioner approached this Court alleging that the MRO demolished the shed on the northern side of his house. The petitioner does not specifically allege that the MRO demolished the shed within the compound wall. Therefore, recording the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the MRO never interfered with the land in possession of the petitioner within the compound wall, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It shall, however, be open to the MRO to take necessary action insofar as the allegation that the petitioner encroached upon the Government land to an extent of 60 square metres (72 square yards). No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.11.2006 vs