IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 16329 of 2014 BETWEEN Vallppaneni Venkataramanamma AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary and two others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner claims that she is in possession of Ac.2-00 of land in Survey No.1990 of Yepinapi Village of Kaligiri Revenue Mandal. It is stated that her father had been cultivating during his lifetime and for over 30 years they have been in possession and since her father has become sick, she was looking after and cultivating the land. She also states that a lemon garden was raised in the said land. The present writ petition came to be filed on the allegation that on account of the political pressure, respondent No.2, the Mandal Revenue Officer, is making attempts to evict the petitioner and the Village Revenue Officer has not permitted her to plant the lemon trees in her land.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was in possession having raised a lemon crop in the aforesaid land; that the land was merely occupied and neither there was any assignment nor any ownership; that previously there was a proposal under consideration for allotment of house sites in the land under possession of the petitioner, but the said proposal has since dropped and the Government is considering the proposal for extension of the S.C.Colony, which is adjacent to the aforesaid lands; and that no decision, as such, is taken and there is no attempt on the part of the official respondents to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.
4. The matter, therefore, is pending on decision as to whether the adjacent S.C.Colony, is required to be given any additional land and after that decision the Assignment Review Committee will consider the matter.
5. In view of the specific instructions that the dispossession of the petitioner is not contemplated by the respondents and they would follow due process of law, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition.
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 8, 2014 LMV