The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.35472 of 2014 Dated 21.11.2014 Between:
Madireddy Veera Venkata Satyanarayana and 7 others …Petitioner And The State of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 2 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms.V.Sesha Kumari for Mr.K.V.Seshagiri Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Industries & Commerce Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.P.Roy Reddy, SC for APIIC The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from different extents of their respective plots situated in Survey No.168 of Parrajupeta, adjacent to ADB Road, Peddapuram Municipal Limits, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of their respective plots situated in the aforesaid survey number, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds. They have alleged that respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the Zonal Manager and the Deputy Zonal Manager of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation (APIIC) are trying to interfere with their possession and dispossess them from their respective plots and that four days back, measurements were taken at the instance of a local politician, who is intending to grab their plots.
A perusal of the averments in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, would show that they are absolutely vague besides being unsubstantiated. The averment that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been trying to interfere with and dispossess the petitioners from their respective plots is not supported by any evidence. Similarly, no evidence is placed in support of the averment that, four days back measurements of those plots were taken. The petitioners have not indicated as to who has taken the measurements. If the petitioners are threatened to be dispossessed from their respective plots by respondent Nos.2 and 3, they are expected to issue notice to the said respondents to refrain from doing so. Had such a notice been issued, respondent Nos.2 and 3 would have come out with their stands for appreciation by this Court. As the petitioners have failed to put respondent Nos.2 and 3 on notice before approaching this Court, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The petitioners are, however, permitted to approach respondent Nos.2 and 3 with appropriate representation and if they are not satisfied with the response of respondent Nos.2 and 3, they shall be free to avail a fresh remedy.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioners as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.44375 of 2014, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is dismissed.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 21st November, 2014
LUR