IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN WRIT PETITION No.29451 of 2010 Between: Ramella China Sammaiah. … Petitioner And The Agent to Government/District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.R.Koteswara Rao. Counsel for the respondents: GP for Social Welfare. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property admeasuring Ac.2.00 cents in Survey No.15/4 of Chiratapalli village; and Ac.1.28 cents in Survey No.12/2 of Wadagudem village, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner pleaded that the above mentioned properties have been in possession of their families since the time of his father from the year 1961. It is his case that his father purchased Ac.2.00 cents under unregistered sale deeds in the years 1975, but their family is in possession of the same from the year 1961. The petitioner further pleaded that the application filed by his father for grant of ryotwari patta in respect of Ac.1.28 cents of land in Wadagudem village, under the Andhra Pradesh Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulation, 1969, was rejected by the competent authority by order, dated 26-8-1975, on the ground that he failed to produce the documentary evidence to show that the land was under his occupation from the year 1961 for a period of not less than eight years immediately before the notified date 26-12-1970. This order having not been challenged, has attained finality. The petitioner pleaded that despite the rejection of patta, his father continued to be in possession and that after his life time, he is in possession of the said land. The petitioner alleged that the revenue authorities are contemplating to evict him from the said lands on the ground that the agreement of sale, under which his father came into possession, is null and void and the same is hit by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. In support of his submission that he is in possession of the property, the petitioner has filed copies of cist receipts. In my opinion, if the petitioner is in possession of the property, the respondents can evict him only by following due process of law. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider whether the petitioner is in physical possession of the property in question. If they find that the petitioner is in physical possession, they shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession without following due process of law. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP No.37515 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:14-11-2011 MNR