A. Adinarasa Reddy , China Adinarasareddy v. The Tahsildar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.1881 OF 2012 ORDER:
No representation for the petitioner in the forenoon and afternoon.
2. The petitioner prays for Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with his possession and enjoyment of land to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in survey No.863/A of Kanigiri Village, Prakasam District, as illegal and unconstitutional.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land, which is subject matter of the writ petition through a registered sale deed, dated 27.04.2005 and he is in continuous and physical possession of the same. On 24.01.2012 the respondents visited the petition land and directed the petitioner to vacate the petition land. Hence, the Writ Petition.
4. The Tahsildar, Kanigiri/1st respondent filed counter affidavit. The case of the 1st respondent is that an extent of Ac.4-56 cents in survey No.863/A of Kanigiri Village was classified as assessed waste dry land and on 15.11.1974 it was assigned to one Sk.Moulalisaheb S/o Imam Saheb of Kanigiri Village.
The assignee and his successors-in-interest have alienated the assigned land in violation of assign conditions and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (POT) Act, 1977 (for short, 'the Act'). Proceedings were initiated in Case No.Rc.A/480/2012. It is further stated notices in Form -I and II were issued to all the concerned and finally resumption order was passed. The assignee filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur and the same was dismissed on 11.06.2013. It is categorically stated that vide proceedings Rc.A/480/2012, dated 08.09.2012, the possession of the petition land was resumed.
5. The petitioner has approached the Court on the assumption that possession is taken without recourse to the procedure prescribed by law. In spite of receipt of counter affidavit on 22.06.2016, the petitioner did not file reply or additional plea in support of his contention of continuous possession of petition land.
6. Having regard to the stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that the prayer as made is unavailable, the respondents have initiated proceedings under the Act and resumed possession of the subject land. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE S.V. BHATT AUGUST 08, 2016 YVL THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT
WRIT PETITION No.1881 OF 2012 Dt: 08.08.2016 YVL