Manjuala Venkateswararao vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others

C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have not been evicting respondent No. 5 and delivering physical possession of the house site, admeasuring Ac. 0.04 cents or 192 square yards situated in Plot No. 5 in R.S. No. 174/2 of Ramanakkapeta Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District (for short ''the subject land'') to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that his father was assigned the subject land on 05.08.1976 by respondent No. 2; that his father has constructed a thatched house in the said site; that respondent No. 5 had trespassed into the said house in the middle of May 2012 and obtained possession certificate on 13.06.2012 from respondent No. 2; that on the petitioner approaching respondent No. 2, the latter has cancelled possession certificate given to respondent No. 2, vide his proceedings in Rc. No. A.3/2013, dated 08.02.2013; and that as physical possession of the said land was not restored to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 has addressed letter, dated 26.06.2013, to respondent No. 4 for restoring physical possession of the plot to the petitioner. As no action has been taken by respondent No. 4 on the said letter of respondent No. 2, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.

I have heard Sri N. Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

From the admitted facts of the case, it is evident that respondent No. 5 has -trespassed into the petitioner''s plot and obtained possession certificate later. The cancellation of possession certificate of respondent No. 5 would give a right to the petitioner for the former''s eviction.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no provision of law under which respondent No. 2 can ask respondent No. 4 to evict respondent No. 5 from the subject land.

The power to order eviction of an encroacher from the land claimed by a private person lies only with the civil Court. In the absence of any statutory provision which enables respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to evict an unauthorised occupant of an assigned land, during the subsistence of the assignment, the very letter addressed by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 4 is beyond his jurisdiction. Thus, no Mandamus can be issued to enforce such a letter. The only remedy available to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is to approach the competent civil Court and seek eviction of respondent No. 5 from the subject land.

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. Nos. 45679 and 45680 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous.