Nagappa Alias Meenugu Naganna S/O Mareppa, v. The District Collector, Anantapur,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Writ Petition No.31061 of 2012 Date: 26-10-2015 Between:

Nagappa @ Meenugu Naganna .... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Ananthapur, and 4 others .... Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Writ Petition No.31061 of 2012 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. With the consent of both parties, the present writ petition is heard at the stage of admission itself.

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in dispossessing the petitioner from the house bearing D.No.3/233 in Survey No.61-1, situated at Kadadarakunta village, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapur District without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to dispossess the petitioner from the said house. The factual matrix leading to filing the writ petition are that the petitioner purchased house site admeasuring Ac.0.041⁄2 cents (House No.4) in Survey No.61-1, situated at Kadadarakunta village, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapur District through D-form patta

H.S. Dis.No.3/82 dated 26-06-1973 on 15-03-1990 from H. Obulesu, by paying a sale consideration of Rs.2,300/- through an unregistered agreement of sale, which transaction was to the knowledge of the family members of the assignee. The petitioner constructed a house by spending huge amounts and is said to be residing therein right from the date of purchase of the said house. While the things stood thus, the 4th respondent filed O.S.No.143 of 2012 in respect of the property in question seeking permanent injunction against the 5th respondent herein restraining him from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the 4th respondent, in which the writ petitioner was not a party.

The said suit was decreed ex parte on 20-07-2012 restraining the defendant therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapur District tried to interfere with the property in dispute though the 4th respondent was silent on that aspect. Challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with the possession of the property, the present writ petition came to be filed.

Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner restricts his prayer seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the possession of the property in question by the petitioner except under due process of law.

Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the allegations made in the writ affidavit are all false and invented for the purpose of the writ petition. According to him, the 4th respondent is in possession of the property and as such, the

question of interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the property does not arise. The Government Pleader for Revenue stated on instructions that out of Ac.0.041⁄2 cents of land, the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent are in possession of Ac.0.021⁄4 cents of land each.

A perusal of the judgment dated 20-07-2012 in O.S.No.143 of 2012 reveal that the dispute between the 4th respondent and the 5th respondent was to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents of land only. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions stated that the Tahsildar, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapur District is not interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the property in question.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the statement made by the learned Government Pleader that the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar is not interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the property in question, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to follow the due process of law if any steps to be taken for dispossession of the petitioner from the land. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ___________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 26-10-2015 Ksn