Bonda Nageswara Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P.No.17440 OF_2016 ORDER:

The petitioners pray for the following relief: .....this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their land in an extent of Ac 8.40 cents in Sy.No.357 of Reddipalli Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide against the rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of India and apart from violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' total extent of land Ac 8.40 cents in Sy.No.357 situated at Reddipalli Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District without following process of law and pass........"

The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit and the relevant paragraphs read thus:

"It is submitted that the total extent covered by Survey No.357 of Reddipalli Village is Ac.52.47 cts with registered classification as "Gayalu" (Government land) and per the S.F.A and other revenue records. Out of this total extent, an extent of Ac.2-00 each to 8 members were assigned under Dharkhast Rules and under the provisions laid down under B.S.O 15. Besides, these individuals, an extent of Ac.5.00 cts in S.No.357/2 was assigned in favour of Sri Bonda Nageswara Rao, s/o late Ramulu (petitioner in this W.P) treating him as an ex-serviceman. The D.form patta was also issued to him - the petitioner for the same extent Ac.5-00 cts in S.No.357/2 vides D.R.No.86/90 dt.13.02.1990 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Padmanabham.

pattadar pass book bearing No.

C-345820 under PATTA No.206 was also issued for the said land Ac.5.00 covered by S.No.357/2 accordingly. Besides, this assigned land the petitioner has encroached the Government land for more than Ac.10-00 in the same Sy.No.357/2 in and around his D.form patta lands."

It is further submitted that an extent of Ac.10.00 in the same S.No.357 of Reddipalli village has been identified for its

allotment in favour of M.S.Nagabhushnam & Co on lease basis and proposals submitted to the District Collector (2nd respondent). At the time of identification of the above land and at the field enquiry no objections were raised by anybody. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam vide his Progs.Rc.4557/2015 E2 dt.22.01.2016 has also allotted the land measuring Ac.10.00 of Government land in S.No.357 and 358 of Reddipalli village in favour of the above firm on lease basis for a period of 10 years for establishment of crushing unit, rock sand unit and asphalt plan for construction of work widening and strengthening of the road from Km.15/1 to 24/660 four lines road from Visakhapatnam to Bheemunipatnam Beach road in Visakhapatnam district.

The petitioner now creating a lot of nuisance in that area by using some rowdy sheeters, stating that he purchased an extent of Ac.3.40 in and around his assigned land. He purchased these lands which are adjacent to his assigned lands which are also the assigned lands through unregistered documents which are not valid and no title passes otherwise. The purchase of the assigned lands from D.form patta holders is contrary to law in terms of the A.P. Assigned lands (POT) Act".

From the above, it is clear that the 4th respondent has perceived breach of conditions of assignment and also that the petitioners are in possession of Government land in an extent of Ac.10-00 as noted above. The Assistant Government Pleader submits that the respondents will follow procedure stipulated by law and pass orders or dispossess the petitioners from the petition land. The statement is placed on record and the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' possession of petition land and also encroached land, except in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

____________ S.V.BHATT, J 27th June, 2017 Lrkm