P.V.Ramani, v. The Executive Engineer, R And B Division, Kurnool.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 18292 of 2012 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for R & B appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader for revenue appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from H.No.50/472A in an extent of 272 square yards in S.No.576/B1 situated at B Camp, Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool, without following the due process of law, pending application dated 21.06.1993 made by the petitioner's mother seeking regularization of the premises in her favour, before respondents 2 and 3, as illegal and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to an application made by her father, in the year 1968, the 1st respondent granted lease of site to an extent of 272 square yards in S.No.576/B1 for conducting firewood business by erecting a shed therein and since then the father of the petitioner was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death on 12.08.1982. Thereafter, the lease was being continued in the name of the mother of the petitioner. It is stated when the respondents tried to evict the mother of the petitioner from the premises, W.P.No.13818 of 1993 came to be filed. By an order dated 17.09.1993, this Court, while dismissing the said writ petition, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District (2nd respondent herein) to consider and dispose of the application dated 21.06.1993 made by the petitioner's mother seeking regularization of the premises in her favour. But, the said application is still pending consideration. It is stated that on 26.09.2002 the mother of the

petitioner died intestate, and the petitioner being class-1 legal heir continued to be in possession of the property by conducting firewood business in the premises. It is alleged that when the subordinates of the 1st respondent interfered with the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent seeking to consider her long-standing possession. In response thereto, the 1st respondent addressed a letter dated 04.06.2012 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over the possession. The action of the 1st respondent in directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering and disposing of the representation made by her mother led to filing of the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has no power to direct the petitioner to vacate the premises and deliver the possession. He further submits that though this Court in W.P.No. 13818 of 1993 directed the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the application dated 21.06.1993 made by the petitioner's mother, till date no orders are passed on the said application. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for revenue submits that there is no material on record to show that the petitioner was granted lease of the premises, and as such, her request cannot be considered.

It is true that no documentary evidence is placed before the Court to show the existence of lease between the 1st respondent and parents of the petitioner or authorizing the petitioner to continue in possession of the property. But, the material on record would show that on 04.06.2012 the 1st respondent issued a letter requesting the petitioner to vacate the premises immediately, failing which, action be initiated for vacation of the land with the help of police and revenue

authorities. It was also stated in the letter that lease was granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner, and as she died on 26.09.2002, the lease automatically stands terminated, and as such, the question of the petitioner continuing the firewood business in the premises would not arise. From the above letter, it is clear that lease was granted to the mother of the petitioner and after her death, the petitioner appears to be in possession of the property.

Having regard to the circumstances stated above and without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from H.No.50/472A in an extent of 272 square yards in S.No.576/B1 situated at B Camp, Kallur Village & Mandal, Kurnool, without following the due process of law, if the petitioner is in possession as on today. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR 16th September, 2015 cbs HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No. 18292 of 2012 16th September, 2015 cbs