IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20266 of 2010 Between: Smt. T. Krishnaveni ..... Petitioner AND Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Ms. Sudha Rajudu for Sri J. Venkateswar Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20266 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that though she holds a patta stated to have been granted to her on 17.06.2002 in respect of plot No.224 of Uppal, respondent No.3 has been helping respondent No.4 to evict the petitioner from the said plot on the ground that respondent No.4 was also granted a patta for the same plot. At the hearing, Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that though the patta said to have been granted to respondent No.4 does not contain specific plot number, in the guise of a purported patta, respondent No.4 is seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and that respondent No.3 is aiding and abetting respondent No.4 in doing so. The learned counsel placed reliance on letter dated 21.05.2010 issued by respondent No.2 to the Station House Officer, Uppal Police Station, wherein it is mentioned that the patta granted to the petitioner in respect of plot No.224 is genuine and that in the patta granted to respondent No.4, the column relating to plot number is kept vacant. No counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. The facts noted above would disclose that there are competing claims with respect to the plot in question. If the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.4, the petitioner is entitled to approach appropriate civil Court to restrain respondent No.4 from unlawfully interfering with her possession of the property. If respondent Nos.2 and 3 or either of them seeks to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the property, they can do so only by initiating appropriate proceedings as per law. Without initiation of such proceedings, neither of the said two respondents can interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the plot, so long as the patta granted in her favour continues to subsist. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.25738 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27.09.2010 ES