G. Dasaradha Rami Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

Date :27.10.2017 Between :

G Dasaradha Rami Reddy S/o Rami Reddy R/o H NO. 9/8 Raja Saheb Peta Porumamilla, Kadapa district Petitioner And The State of AP Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi & others Respondents The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

This writ petition is filed alleging that the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the agricultural land without following due procedure. According to petitioners, land admeasuring Ac.5.00 cents, in Survey No. 400 Porumamilla mandal, Kadapa was assigned by DKT patta on 27.8.2000 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

2.

On 2.10.2017 petitioners submitted representation to the Tahsildar informing him that somebody removed the plantations made in the subject property, therefore requested him to provide sub-division numbers. It appears that representation was actually acknowledged on 10.10.2017, while so, this writ petition is filed alleging Tahsildar's interference.

3.

Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would disclose that some unknown persons are illegally interfering with the possession of the petitioners, they have entered into the land of the petitioners with tractors and bulldozers and threatened the petitioners with dire consequences. However, in the same paragraph it is alleged that Tahsildar is instigating them. No reasons are assigned why Tahsildar is instigating other private persons and no malafides are attributed to Tahsildar, further more, on 2.10.2017 a representation was addressed to the Tahsildar, acknowledged by him on 10.10.2017 and another representation was made on 25.10.2017. Thus, it appears only to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court regarding a private dispute the role of Tahsildar is sought to be injected into. Therefore this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. If petitioners have any grievance against third parties encroaching into their private properties, petitioners have to avail common law remedies as available to them. At

this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submitted petitioners intend to make a requisition to assign sub division number and the same may be considered. Disposal of this Writ Petition would not come in the way of petitioners making appropriate application to request assignment of sub division numbers.

4.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed. _________________ P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE: 27.10.2017 TVK

Date :27.10.2017