IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.16475 of 2014 BETWEEN K. Venkatesh.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE GP FOR HOME MR. KARANAM RAVI SHANKAR BABU The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Karnam Ravi Shankar Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 10.
2. Petitioner states that he is a small farmer and he was assigned land in an extent of Ac.0.59 cents in Sy.No.436/11 and an extent of Ac.1.31 cents in Sy.No.436/15 in Kotha Kota Village, V. Kota Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District by way of D.K.T. patta dated 05.03.1986. Petitioner states that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. However, the villagers, some of them impleaded as respondents 5 to 10, intended to utilize the said land for communal purpose and for that reason, it is alleged that they are pressurizing the revenue officers. Petitioner apprehends that he is likely to be dispossessed with following due process of law. Petitioner also states that respondents 2 to 4 are not taking any action against respondents 5 to 10 against their attempt to take over the land of the petitioner.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions from the Tahsildar, states that since long time there is representation from the villagers for providing a piece of land for communal purpose. However, since there is no suitable Government land in and around the said village, it is, however, stated that if and when the Government decides that the land of the petitioner is required to be utilized, he would be given appropriate notice and procedure prescribed will be followed and as on date, no steps are taken to disturb the petitioner in any manner.
4. Learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 also filed a counter denying that there is any interference by them with the land of the petitioner. It is also stated that if there is such claim of interference by private party respondents, it is open for the petitioner to move appropriate civil Court for necessary protection.
5. Evidently, since none of the respondents are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioner, as has been categorically stated by the Tahsildar in his instructions, noted above, it is apparent that the writ petition is filed purely on apprehension and no further orders are called for.
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 22, 2014 DSK