IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 155 of 2002 Between: Smt. Kandula Rama Devi, W/o. Balachander, R/o. Venkatapuram Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mudigonda, Khammam District. 2 The Rekvenue Divisional Officer, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The District Collector, Khammam, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJA MALLA REDDY Counsel for the respondents : AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.1.20 gts in Survey No.145, Venkatapuram Village, Mudigonda Mandal, Khammam District as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The above mentioned extent was shown to be in possession of the family of the petitioner right from the time of her grandfather, namely; Kandula Buchaiah. The ownership of this property is in serious dispute with the petitioner claiming that the same is a private patta land of her family and respondent No.1 claiming that it is described as ‘matruka’ property, which according to him is a Government land. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have been unduly interfering with her possession. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, it is admitted that in the pahanies for the years 1968-69 and 1970- 71, the name of Kandula Buchaiah is shown as enjoyer in column No.13; in the pahanies for the years 1973-74 and 1977-78 to 1982-83 in column No.13 the name of Kandula Achaiah is shown as enjoyer and that in the pahanies for the years 1994-95, 1996- 97, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 in column No.13 the name of the petitioner is shown as enjoyer. Respondent No.1, however, stated that the sharas of Mandal Revenue Inspector show that the land was used as ‘donka’ and therefore, in the cultivation column of pahanies for the years 1994-95 and 1996-97, it is shown as ‘padava’ meaning ‘not cultivated’. The fact that Kandula Buchaiah and Kandula Achaiah are the grandfather and father of the petitioner is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the meaning of ‘matruka’ as ascribed by the respondents, namely; that it is a Government land. According to him, the word ‘matruka’ means the land in respect of which the inter se dispute regarding title is not settled. The questions, whether the land, in question, is a private patta land of the petitioner’s family or Government land and what is the exact meaning of ‘matruka’ cannot be decided in this writ petition. Even according to respondent No.1, on 18-11-1997, a show cause notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner and his two brothers proposing eviction and that no reply was given by them. Respondent No.1 has not pleaded that in pursuance of the said show cause notice, he passed any order. In the face of the admission made by respondent No.1 with reference to the revenue record that the petitioner is in possession at least from 1994-95, while her father and grandfather were shown to be in possession during the earlier periods, the respondents cannot interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the said land until they initiate appropriate proceedings in law for her eviction. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for recovery of possession, if they so choose. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 25th September, 2008 vrn