IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 21892 of 2008 Between: Kurva Ranganna S/o.Late Iyanna R/o.Douderpally village Gadwall Mandal,Mahabubnagar District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector,Mahabubnagar district Mahabubnagar 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Gadwal Mahabubnagar District 3 The Tahasildar,Gadwal Mandal,Gadwal Mahabubnagar District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandmaus declaring the action of the respondnets in interfering in the land in an extent of Ac.3.18 guntas in SY.No.939 and 18 cents in Sy.No.886 total extent of Ac.3.36 guntas of Douderpally village, Gadwall mandal,Mahabubnagar District belonging to the petitioner without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary,and violation of Articles, 14,21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from theland in an extent of Ac.3.18 guntas in Sy.No.939 and 18 cent sin SY.No.886 total extent of Ac.3.36 guntas of Douderpally village, Gadwall Mandal,Mahabubnagar District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.SHANTHI NEELAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: This writ petition is filed on the ground that without initiating land acquisition proceedings, the respondents are interfering with the petitioner’s ownership and possession of the land in an extent of Ac.3- 18 guntas in Sy.No. 939 and Ac. 0-18 guntas in 886 (total extent of Ac.3-36 guntas) of Douderpaly Village, Godwal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is clearly and categorically denied by the answering respondent (at para 6) that the respondents are interfering with the possession of the land in question while admitting that the petitioner is the pattadar of the specified land. In the light of this denial, which is not rebutted in any subsequent pleadings by the petitioner, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 27th April, 2009. GRR