ORDER :- This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his house assigned vide HSR Dis. No.6/98, dated 25.1.1989 in Survey No.145/2, admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents-in" Mulukakdu Majara, Thippanapalli Village, Settur Mandal, Ananthapur District without issuing any-notice and without following due process of law, as illegal and vielative of principles of natural justice. 2. It is the case of the writ "'petitioner that he was assigned, with a house site in Sy.No.145-2 with Plot No.4 Vide assignment patta HSR Dis.No.6/98, dated 25.1.1989 admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents in Mulukaledu Majara, Thippannapalli Village, Ananthapur District and that he raised a small hut in the said site and living therein with his family. It is his case that when he intended to construct a pucca house in the said site, the respondents with a mala fide intention made attempts to dispossess him from the subject land and that he made a written representation to the respondents requesting not to dispossess him from the land. However, it is stated that on 10.7.2008 tl1e respondents' came to his land and asked him to vacate the said house and threatened him with dire consequences. 3. The 1st respondent did not choose to file any counter in spite of giving several opportunities. 4. The 2nd respondent-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Thippannapalli, filed counter stating that the petitioner, having occupied the rastha in Thippannapalli Village, r is trying to construct a pucca house without getting his land identified by the Tahsildar. It is the case of the 2nd respondent that the Panchayat Secretary of the Gram panchayat issued a notice dated 22.12.2007 asking him not to construct any house therein, but in spite of the same, as the petitioner is trying to raise the structures, the 2nd respondent filed as No.119 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg for grant of permanent injunction and obtained interim injunction against the writ petitioner by an order dated 17.6.2008. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Revenue. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner had been in possession of the subject land being assigned with the same vide assignment patta in HSR Dis.No.6 of 1998 dated 25.1.1989 and he is at liberty to construct a pucca house within the permissible limits as per the conditions in the assignment patta, but at the same, he cannot encroach any place except the site stated therein. However, it is the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner encroached rastha for constructing a pucca house. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the constructions are being made by the petitioner only in the land allotted to him. As per the conditions of the assignment order, the petitioner is entitled to have constructions made in the said site, but at the same time, he cannot encroach any rastha as alleged by the 2nd respondent. Whether the petitioner has encroached the rastha as alleged by the 2nd -respondent or not, cannot be decided in the present writ petition. If really the petitioner has encroached the rastha as alleged by the 2nd respondent, it is always open for the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat to take necessary steps for removal of such encroachment under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. In the absence of any proof of encroachment by the writ petitioner as alleged, it is not justified to dispossess the petitioner from the land already allotted to him. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his site allotted to him by the assignment patta in HSR Dis.No.6/98, dated 25.1.1989 in Survey No. 145/2, admeasuring Ac.O.03 cents in Mulukaledu Majara, Thippannapalli Village, Settur Mandai, Ananthapur District. However, it is made clear that if there is any encroachment made by the petitioner on the rastha as alleged by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is not precluded to take necessary steps to remove such encroachment as per the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made therein. 8. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.