Kollu Satyam, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh,

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.38523 of 2015 Date: 20.01.2016 Between:

Kollu Satyam .. Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Prl.Secretary Panchayat Raj Dept., Hyderabad and 12 others .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.Rambabu Koppineedi Counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 7: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.5 & 6: Mr.Ravi Cheemalapati The Court made the following:

O r d e r :

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4, in taking departmental action against respondent Nos.5 to 8, as illegal and arbitrary.

The petitioner averred that he has constructed a house in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in Survey No.349/4 of Antarvedipalem Village, East Godavari District, and been residing therein; that there is a dispute with regard to the said property between himself and respondent No.9; and that in that connection, respondent Nos.5 to 8, who are also impleaded as eo nomini parties as respondent Nos.10 to 13, are helping respondent No.9 by interfering with his possession of the aforesaid property and threatening to demolish the same. Respondent No.5 has filed a detailed counteraffidavit wherein he has stoutly denied all the allegations made by the petitioner regarding his alleged interference with the former's possession of the subject property. He has averred that he is not at all interfering with the petitioner's possession of the subject property and that, in future, if any such interference is warranted, he will initiate appropriate

action as per law.

Mr.Ravi Cheemalapati, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat, submitted that respondent No.6 being the Officer at Mandal Level has nothing to do with the petitioner's property.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (AP) submitted that respondent No.7 is no way connected with the petitioner's property and that he is not at all interfering with the same. In the light of the categorical denial of interference by respondent Nos.5 to 7 and in the absence of any evidence in support of the plea of the petitioner of such interference, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.49591 of 2015, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 20th January, 2016 lur