IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22660 of 2014 BETWEEN Potturu Venkateswarlu AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that he was granted D-Form patta relating to survey No.1 admeasuring Ac.4-20 cents in Vulvapalli village, H/o.Thimmayapalem Village, Chejerla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, under orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chejarla Manda dated 24.08.1999 and that he has been issued pattadar passbooks. It is further claimed that respondent Nos.5 to 8, who are enemically disposed towards the petitioner, are pressuring the Tahsildar, respondent No.4 herein, and trying to evict the petitioner without following due process of law. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed to protect the petitioner’s possession from such unlawful attempt to dispossess. It is also stated that petitioner has filed O.S.No.112 of 2011 before the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, against respondent Nos.5 to 8 seeking permanent injunction and the said suit is pending.
3. Learned government pleader has received instructions, which states that the petitioner is in possession of the said assigned extent and the cultivation of the petitioner is also noticed in the Adangal upto Fasli 1420. It is further stated that due to the village politics, there were disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8 and the petitioner has filed the present writ petition merely on apprehension and there was no attempt on the part of the Tahsildar or by his field staff to evict the petitioner from the land, in question.
4. In view of the said categorical statement of the Tahisildar, as reproduced by the learned Government Pleader, it is clear that the writ petition is filed merely on apprehension and, as such, no further orders are required to be passed.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 21, 2014 LMV