ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:- “.... to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in allotting land in Sy.No.64-1 (Part) in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and in Sy.No.64-17 in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents situated in Gangampeta Village, Cheedivalsa Panchayat, Burji Mandal, Srikakulam District to beneficiaries under the Navaratnalu Scheme towards house site pattas, where the said land was allotted to the petitioner by way of D-Patta and petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records viz., 1B Register, Pattadar Pass Book and the petitioner is paying tax cist where an alternative land is available such action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, violative of natural justice, besides being right to enjoy the property as guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to withdraw from the proposal of allotting the land in Sy.No.64-1 (Part) in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and in Sy.No.64-17 in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents towards house pattas and to allot alternative land, which is available in the village and to pass such other order.” 2. The case of petitioner in nutshell is that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Burji vide letter No.780/1989, dated 28.06.1989 has issued D-Patta for an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.no.64 (Part) and for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.64-17 which is classified as “Konda Poramboke” on the application submitted by the petitioner for his livelihood. Since then, he is cultivating commercial crops as well as Teak wood tope in the said survey numbers and eking out his livelihood. While the matter stood thus, the government has formulated a scheme known as “Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu” to allot house site pattas to the landless poor persons, under the said scheme at the behest of local political leaders, more particularly at the instance of Sarpanch of Gangampeta Village damaged the teak plantation and caused damage to the crop in Sy.Nos.64-14 and 64-17 without acquiring the land according to procedure, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Hence, the writ petition. 3. During hearing, Sri Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition, whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, fairly accepted to follow due process of law, to evict or dispossess the petitioner though no counter is filed and requested to pass appropriate order. 4. The documents produced along with the Writ Petition more particularly patta issued in favour of the petitioner, pattadar pass book issued by the revenue authorities and Adangal for fasili 1431 for an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.64-17 and for an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.64-1 for fasili 1431 and Form-IB prima facie establish that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property in his own right being assignee under D-Form patta as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Thus, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and thereby he cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law in view of the law as held down in “Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs. V. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs, (2004) 1 SCC 769 ”. Therefore, respondents are directed, not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.64-1 (Part) in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents and in Sy.No.64-17 in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents situated in Gangampeta Village, Cheedivalsa Panchayat, Burji Mandal, Srikakulam District, except by due process of law. 5. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.