Kanitha Mani, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.20829 of 2017 ORDER:

Heard Ms.G.P.Vindhya for petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

The Assistant Government Pleader made her submissions basing on the written instructions dated 27-06-2017. The petitioners are assignees of small plots in Sy.No.140 of Mopada Village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The petitioners claim to be in possession and enjoyment of respective plots allotted to them. The details of plots allotted to each one of the petitioners read as follows :- 1st petitioner Plot No.92 2nd petitioner Plot No.74 3rd petitioner Plot No.64 4th petitioner Plot No.124 5th petitioner Plot No.114 6th petitioner Plot No.129 7th petitioner Plot No.115 8th petitioner Plot No.125 9th petitioner Plot No.134 10th petitioner Plot No.120 11th petitioner Plot No.41 12th petitioner Plot No.113 13th petitioner Plot No.123

14th petitioner Plot No.90 15th petitioner Plot No.43 16th petitioner Plot No.119 17th petitioner Plot No.117 18th petitioner Plot No.136 19th petitioner Plot No.50 20th petitioner Plot No.116 21st petitioner Plot No.121 22nd petitioner Plot No.126 23rd petitioner Plot No.68 24th petitioner Plot No.122 25th petitioner Plot No.127 26th petitioner Plot No.135 27th petitioner Plot No.19 28th petitioner Plot No.74 29th petitioner Plot No.128 30th petitioner Plot No.89 Now the petitioners complaining interference with their possession and enjoyment have filed the instant writ petition. I have gone through the written instructions dated 27-06-2017.

The 4th respondent does not dispute the inspection of subjec t land by his subordinates. The explanation offered is to find out the vacant plots, survey the vacant plots and submit a report, the subordinates of 4th respondent have gone to the

subjec t matter of writ petition. From the instructions, it is clear that now ground is prepared for taking further steps in this behalf either to cancel or allot the land already assigned to petitioners to third parties. Therefore, the apprehension of petitioners prima facie appears to be tenable.

The petitioners are beneficiaries of the order of assignment by the Government. The monotonous consideration, recalling the assignment or allotting the same plot to another person, does not achieve the purpose for which the assignment of small plots was made by the 2nd respondent. As in the neighbourhood a few houses have already come, the petitioners ought to be encouraged to c onstruct houses in the plots assigned to them. The assignment in favour of petitioners is not disputed and therefore, the interference, as apprehended, is impermissible in law.

The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners plots referred to above except for justifiable reasons and grounds. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. _____________ S. V. BHATT, J Dt: 28-06-2017 Prv

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.20829 of 2017 28-06-2017 Prv