Writ Petition No. 27503 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

Questioning the failure of the respondents in acting upon the representation filed by the petitioner on 03.09.2011 with regards providing protection to his person and to his lands admeasuring Ac.2- 12 guntas, Ac.1-13 guntas and Ac.1-01 gunta in Survey Nos.472, 492 and 493 respectively of Budwel Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, the present Writ Petition is filed. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to take action in accordance with Section 17 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act 33 of 1989). The petitioner and his two brothers claim to be the legal heirs of the original protected tenant in respect of the lands aforementioned. They also claim to have been issued an ownership certificate under Section 38 (E) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 vide proceedings dated 30.04.1975. It is their specific case that, after the death of their grandfather, their father had to approach various fora to have his name mutated in the revenue records and, eventually, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar, vide proceedings dated 27.05.2011, had granted succession, and had delivered physical possession. The Mandal Revenue Officer is also said to have issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in their favour. It is the petitioner’s case that, while matters stood thus, certain strangers, whose identities they were unaware, had been visiting the subject lands, and had sought to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession of the lands in question. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court passed an elaborate order on 30.09.2011 calling upon respondent Nos.1 and 2 to forthwith take action in terms of Section 17 of Act 33 of 1989, and to submit a report to this Court by

10.10.2011. Consequent thereto, reports are filed both by the first and second respondents. In his report dated 10.10.2011, the second respondent submits that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, he had summoned the petitioner; he had got the matter thoroughly enquired; he had again instructed the concerned Station House Officer, Rajendranagar Police Station to proceed with the petitioner to the subject lands to identify the unknown personnel; the police personnel of Rajendranagar Police Station had visited the subject lands of the petitioner, along with the petitioner, and had found no one there; he had assured the petitioner that the police would always be ready and willing to take necessary action as per law if he identified any one who encroached into the subject lands; as of now, no case has been registered on the file of Rajendranagar Police Station; and, as the petitioner has not been able to identify the persons who were visiting his lands, he would certainly initiate action against those responsible, as and when the petitioner was able to identify them.

The second respondent further states that he had assured the petitioner that he could approach his office whenever he faced difficulty with persons interfering with his lands as mentioned in the representation. In his report dated 13.10.2011, the first respondent submits that, on the petitioner’s representation, the Tahsildar had been instructed to inspect the subject lands immediately and, if any unsocial elements were creating nuisance in the subject lands, to bring it to the notice of the police; and the Assistant Commissioner had furnished a report to this Court on 08.10.2011 detailing the action taken by him. The first respondent assures that the subject lands would be safeguarded by the respondents from encroachers/unsocial elements, as and when required, by giving protection. Sri S. Tulasi Das, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that both the first and second respondents are periodically visiting the area in question, and have taken necessary measures to protect the lands belonging to the petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste.

He submits that, in view of the subsequent action taken both by the first and second respondents, the cause in the Writ Petition does not necessitate any further adjudication as at present. In the light of the reports submitted by the first and second respondents, their having acted in accordance with Section 17 of Act 33 of 1989, and in as much as they have taken steps to protect the petitioner’s rights over the property in question, I see no reason to keep the Writ Petition pending on the file of this Court. Leaving it open to the petitioner, in case he is so aggrieved, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court if need be, later, the Writ Petition is closed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J October 14, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.27503 OF 2011 MD October 14, 2011