IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 10049 of 2001 Between: Shaik Kalesha Saheb, S/o.Shaik Pedda Subhan Saheb, R/o. Penagalur Kothapalli Village, Penagalur Mandal, Cuddapah Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist.Collector Cuddapah. 2 The Mandal Revenue Offficer, Penagalur Mandal, Cuddapah Dist. .....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 a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the lawful possession of the petittioner's Kottam and land an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy.No.105/1A of Penagalur Kothapalli Village, Penagalur Mandal, Cuddapah Dist., though the petitioner got valid house site patta granted in the year 1983 as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with th lawful possession of the petitioner's Kottam and land an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy.No.105/1A situated at Penagalur Kothapalli Village, Penagalur Mandal, Cuddapah District, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.DASARADHA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.10049 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with lawful possession of the petitioner’s Kottam and land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.105/1A of Penagalur Kothapalli village, Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa District, though he got valid house site patta granted in the year 1983 as illegal and arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted patta to an extent of 0.05 cents in Sy.No.105/1A, wherein, he constructed a thatched house in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents out of Ac.0.05 cents, immediately, after the assignment and the said land is in his peaceful possession and enjoyment. While so, the subordinates of the 2nd respondent, along with his servants, came to the house of the petitioner and removed the Kottam without any reason and notice. Challenging the action of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that there is no recorded evidence available in his office, regarding granting patta in favoaur of the petitioner, since the entire records were burnt on 17-08-1984 during NTR agitation. It is further stated that the total extent of land in Sy.No.105/1 is Ac.4.26 guntas, which is classified as village site, and the same was not subdivided as Sy. No.105/1A and 1B. Further, the respondents while disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to the site in question contended that no wall belonging to the petitioner has been removed and as such no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. It is further stated that since the site in question is only a vacant site, the question of removing kottam does not arise. Further, as he has not made any construction, it amounts to violating the condition of the D-Form Patta. 4. This Court granted stay of eviction on 22-05-2001 in W.P.M.P.No.12598 of 2001. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 6. From the above averments, it could be seen that there is no specific denial with regard to grant of patta to the petitioner for the land in question. But the respondents only contended that as the petitioner did not make any construction in the patta land, it amounts to violation of D-Form patta. 7. Under the above circumstances, I am of the view that merely because the petitioner has not made any construction, pursuant to the patta certificate issued to him, automatically, the validity of the said patta does not cease to exist unless and until it is cancelled in accordance with law. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioner, and there is also no interference with the land of the petitioner as stated by the respondents. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents that any action sought to be taken shall only be under due process of law. No costs. ________________ 04-03-2009 kvr