IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24395 of 2014 BETWEEN C. Nagaraju and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioners state that they are owners of an extent of Ac.0.8 cents of land in Sy.No.299/1 of Madakasira Municipality fields, Anantapuram District. Petitioners state that their father Late C. Narayana was the absolute owner and he executed a registered gift deed dated 28.06.1996 in their favour out of love and affection. Petitioners state that they have erected small bunks and carrying on petty business and are paying electricity bills in view of service connection obtained by them. Alleging that there is an attempt to evict petitioners by respondents 4 and 5 without giving any notice, the present writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 4 and 5 not to evict petitioners from the land in question without notice and without conducting any enquiry.
2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has already received instructions in the matter wherein it is stated that there are no attempts and no steps taken to evict the petitioners, as alleged.
The aforesaid instructions received by the Assistant Government Pleader are also examined by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. In view of the said categorical statement on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, it is evident that the present writ petition is filed only on apprehension. Since respondents 4 and 5 are not taking highhanded action for eviction of the petitioners, as alleged, no further orders are warranted in the writ petition. However, if and when action is required to be taken against the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5 shall follow due procedure prescribed in law and take appropriate action.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 25, 2014 DSK