Ownership claims must be supported by documentary evidence, and dispossession without due process is impermissible.

ORDER :

T.C.D.SEKHAR, J.

1. The petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.57 ½ cents in Sy.No.222/3 of No.24, Chennaigunta Village No.8, Mangalam Group, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District (Erstwhile Chittoor District), by virtue of the registered gift settlement deed said to have been executed by his father and brother of the petitioner.

2. It is the further case of the petitioner that the since from the date of the said gift deed he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as the absolute owner. Whileso, the 4^th respondent started interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the subject land without following the procedure as contemplated under law and without issuing any notice. Questioning the said action of the respondents, he has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the petitioner is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in Sy.No.222/3 of Chennaigunta Village No.8, Mangalam Group, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District (Erstwhile Chittoor District), and the same is evident on perusal of the gift deed dated 22.04.2008 filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. Though the petitioner has got to the only to an extent of Ac.0.85 cents, he is trying to encroach upon the land abutting his property. He would further submit that, the respondents would follow the procedure under law and pass appropriate order in the matter.

4. Heard Sri K. Satyanand, learned counsel representing Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

5. Perused the record.

6. Though the petitioner has claimed ownership over an extent of Ac.1.57½ cents, on perusal of the gift deed dated 22.04.2008 it is clear that he has got title over an extent of Ac.0.85 cents in the said survey number. In respect of the remaining land claimed by the petitioner admittedly he has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim over the same.

5. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court feels that, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 4^th respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land except in accordance with law.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.