L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS case discloses an instance of highhandedness and flagrant violation of known principles of law and procedure prescribed under the relevant statutes; by the Revenue and Police Authorities of the State, who are supposed to ensure implementation of the same.

( 2 ) THE land in Sy. Nos. 90/1, 90/2 and 92, admeasuring about Acs. 33. 08 gts of gachibowli village was purchased by a private Limited Company, by name m/s. Industrial and Agricultural Engineering company (for short the Company) through a sale deed dated 1-10-1962. The extent of land in Sy. No. 92 is Acs. 16. 10 gts. The company sold this in favour of seventeen individuals through separate sale deeds and the land was assigned sub-divisions from 92/2 to 92/18, indicating the extents purchased under the various sale deeds. One Mr. R. Satyanarayana Reddy purchased an extent of Ac. 2. 00 gts in sy. No. 92/2. The petitioners purchased the same in different extents from the transferees of Satyanarayana Reddy. The petitioners claim to be in possession of ac. 1. 34 gts of land in Sy. No. 92/2.

( 3 ) ADJOINING the land in Sy. No. 92, there is a vast extent of land belonging to the government in Sy. No. 91, admeasuring about Acs. 500. 00 gts. Parts of this land have been allotted to various departments and agencies. Acs. 50. 00 gts of land in Sy. No. 91, by the side of Sy. No. 92 is said to have been allotted in favour of Industrial Development bank of India (IDBI ). While demarcating the said Acs. 50. 00 gts, an attempt was made to include part of the land in Sy. No. 92. Satyanarayana Reddy, who was the then owner, objected to this and submitted a representation to the Joint Collector, Ranga reddy District. He, in turn, called for a report from the Manda! Revenue Officer, sherlingampally-the 3rd respondent herein. On the basis of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent, the Joint Collector, passed on order on 12-8-1989, holding that the various persons who have purchased acs. 16. 10 gts of land in Sy. No. 92 are in possession of the respective extents purchased by them and the map prepared by the Revenue officials while delivering the land in favour of IDBI, does not represent the correct state of affairs. He directed necessary steps to be taken in the matter.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS complain that despite these developments, the respondents have demolished the compound wall which was existing in between the lands in Sy. Nos. 92 and 91 on 19-4-2003 claiming that the land is part of Sy,. No. 91. They seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the compound wall, sheds and gate of the land admeasuring Ac. 1. 34 gts in Sy. No. 92/2, as illegal, arbitrary and not to disturb their possession or induct third pan ss into it. Petitioners allege that they have hot been served with any notices nor any proceedings were initiated against them under any provision of law.

( 5 ) THE 3rd respondent filed a counter- affidavit. He admitted that the land in sy. No. 92 was sub-divided into eighteen bits and that the possession of the respective owners was indicated in the revenue records. It is also stated that Acs. 50. 00 gts of land in Sy. No. 91, by the side of 92, was allotted to IDBI. He contends that the boundaries are demarcated basing on tippons available with the Survey and Land records Department. He is said to have requested the survey authorities to demarcate the land in Sy. No. 91 and to fix the boundaries. The Assistant Director of survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy district, is said to have directed the deputy Inspector of Survey to complete the demarcating work and fix the boundaries.

( 6 ) IT is stated that during the course of such demarcation, it emerged that a compound wall was constructed in the government land in between Sy. No. 92 and the land held by Jawaharlal Nehru Institute for Development Banking, and based on the same, the compound wall was removed to safeguard the Government land. It is stated that an extent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document