IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24495 of 2014 BETWEEN Dabbugottu Srinivasulu.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A.V.V.S.N. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance in the present writ petition is that respondent No.4/Tahsildar is interfering with the possession of the petitioner to the extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.775/2 of Chakalakonda village, Vinjamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Petitioner claims the said land on the basis of D-form patta issued under proceedings No.F.Dis.No.112/1407 dated 30.06.1998. A copy of the adangal is also appended to the affidavit filed along with the writ petition.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has received instructions from the Tahsildar, which confirm that the petitioner was granted patta, as claimed on 30.06.1998 and copy of adangal is also produced by the petitioner. Instructions, further, states that the petitioner is the native of the same village and is stated to be cultivating the land and he does not own any other patta land. It is also stated that the land assigned was originally CJFS land and as the leaseholder did not cultivate the land for several years, it appears to have been assigned to the petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that since the petitioner is an assignee and admittedly, in possession and enjoyment of the land, the allegation made that there is interference by respondent No.4 is factually incorrect.
4. In view of the above, it is evident that the present writ petition is moved only on an apprehension, which is unsubstantiated.
Hence, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 20, 2014 DSK