ORDER : (R. Raghunandan Rao, J.) : Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. As the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions are arising out of the same disputes between essentially the same parties, they are being disposed of, by way of a common order. 3. In view of the rival claims made by both sides, it would be necessary to set out the respective contentions of the private claimants over the land. For the purposes of reference, the parties have been referred to as they are arrayed in W.A.No.943 of 2023. 4. The version of the private respondents is— a) The private respondents are members of the families of persons, who have been displaced due to the acquisition of their land, for establishment of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The displaced persons had been given ‘R’ cards during 1982-84. Thereafter, the State of Andhra Pradesh had allotted house sites to these displaced persons, vide proceedings dated 19.08.2005, in Sy.No.64/29 and 64/30 of Pedagantyada Village, RHC-II admeasuring 107 sq.yards for each of the displaced persons. Thereafter, pattas were given to the displaced persons and a lay out was prepared by the State with plot numbers allotted to the displaced persons. This process is said to have been completed in the year 2005. As none of the plots were handed over to the displaced persons, the said displaced persons and their legal heirs had made various representations for handing over the said plots. The government had then issued an endorsement, dated 23.11.2016, confirming the allotment of plots made in favour of the displaced persons. The said displaced persons and their legal heirs are the private respondents in W.A.No.943 of 2023. b) As the plots were not being handed over despite such confirmation, the private respondents had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.36828 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to handover possession of the respective house sites allotted to the displaced persons. b) As the plots were not being handed over despite such confirmation, the private respondents had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.36828 of 2018 seeking a direction to the respondents therein to handover possession of the respective house sites allotted to the displaced persons. This Writ Petition was allowed, on 05.01.2021, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, with a direction to the respondents to handover possession of the respective house sites, allotted to the displaced persons, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. c) Aggrieved by this order, the State filed Writ Appeal No.115 of 2024 contending that the State should be permitted to ascertain the bonafides of the private respondents and their right and claim to be allotted such plots before any such handing over possession of the plots could be done. d) The appellant, in W.A.No.943 of 2023, who is a third party to the proceedings, moved the said Writ Appeal, after obtaining leave of the Court, on the ground that the land in question belongs to her and is in her possession. The appellant contends that she had purchased the land from the earlier owners of the land, who had been in possession from 1970 onwards and that the private respondents had moved W.P.No.36828 of 2018, by suppressing various litigations and proceedings pending before authorities and pending before this Court. 5. The case of the appellant is as follows: a) One Sri V. Rajan Raju, who was gardener of the Zamindar of the area had been given the land admeasuring Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.No.64/1 of Pedagantyada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and had remained in possession of the same. Thereafter, Sri V. Rajan Raju and his two sons viz., V. Satyanarayana Raju and V. Sanyasi Raju had executed irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 25.06.1984 which was registered as document No.504 of 1984 in the office of the Registrar, Visakhapatnam, in favour of Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy. The said K. Satyanarayana Murthy, representing the above persons, had executed a sale deed dated 15.07.1999, in favour of the appellant and she had been put in possession. The said K. Satyanarayana Murthy, representing the above persons, had executed a sale deed dated 15.07.1999, in favour of the appellant and she had been put in possession. Subsequently this document, which had sought to be marked in O.S.No.443 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka was impounded for nonpayment of stamp duty and released after the stamp duty and penalty assessed by the District Registrar had been paid. The appellant, who had been in possession of this land since then had defended her possession over the land, despite various attempts by the authorities to dispossess her from the said land. b) Initially, Sri V. Rajan Raju is said to have filed an application dated 30.06.1980 contending that he had occupied an extent of Ac.4.00 cents of land in Sy.No.64/1 in the year 1970 and was in possession of the land and was harvesting dry crops including a cashew plantation which was destroyed. A report is said to have been sent by the Tahsildar to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, after inspection of the land and verification of the facts. In this report dated 20.05.1982, The Tahsildar is said to have stated that there was occupation of the land on the basis of a retaining wall existing in the land which is claimed to have been constructed by Sri V. Rajan Raju and on statements said to have been made by the neighbours. Thereafter, in the year 1997, Sri Satyanarayana Raju and V. Sanyasi Raju, the sons of Sri V. Rajan Raju, who had expired by then, approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.2960 of 1997, contending that they are in possession of Ac.5.00 cents of land in Sy.No.64/29 and 64/30 of Pedagantyada Village and that the respondents were seeking to dispossess them without following any procedure established by law. This Writ petition was disposed of, at the stage of admission, directing the authorities not to evict the petitioners therein until procedure, as established by law, is followed. This Writ petition was disposed of, at the stage of admission, directing the authorities not to evict the petitioners therein until procedure, as established by law, is followed. After being silent for a considerable period of time, the Special Grade Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam issued a notice, dated 20.04.2021, informing Sri V. Satyanarayana Raju, that an extent of Ac.48.40 cents of land in Sy.No.64/1D, 64/17B, 64/18 to 64/35 of Pedagantyada Village had already been alienated to the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, by proceedings of the Collector, Visakhapatnam, dated 21.08.1980, for the purpose of providing rehabilitation to displaced persons, and that Sri V. Satyanarayana Raju is no way connected with the said land. Time of seven days was granted for producing documentary proof in support of his claim. c) Sri V. Satyanarayana Raju had submitted a letter dated 06.05.2021 declaring their refusal to handover the land. Sri V. Satyanarayana Raju, later submitted an explanation, dated 30.05.2021, contending that his father and subsequently, he and his brother were in possession of the said land from 1970 and had spent considerable amount of time and money in developing the land including construction of a pucca wall. It was also mentioned that there was a direction from the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.29603 of 1997 protecting their possession and enjoyment of the property until they could be evicted by due process of law. Apart from this, Sri V. Satyanarayana Raju and V. Sanyasi Raju filed W.P.No.14007 of 2021 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents not to dispossess them without considering and passing an order on the explanation, dated 30.05.2021. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 24.07.2021, had directed maintenance of status quo till 02.08.2021. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 17.03.2023, on the ground that the respondents had already rejected the representation, on 10.05.2021 and as such, nothing further would remain in the writ petition. However, at the request of the petitioners they were granted leave to file a fresh writ petition challenging the rejection proceedings dated 20.04.2021. It appears that the date of the proceedings was wrongly taken as 20.04.2021 as the proceedings of rejection are dated 10.05.2021. However, at the request of the petitioners they were granted leave to file a fresh writ petition challenging the rejection proceedings dated 20.04.2021. It appears that the date of the proceedings was wrongly taken as 20.04.2021 as the proceedings of rejection are dated 10.05.2021. It may also be noted that the order of rejection dated 10.05.2021 was given on the basis of the representation of the petitioners given on 07.05.2021, mentioned earlier. Thereafter, both Sri V. Satyanarayana Rau and V. Sanyasi Raju do not appear in the present litigation. d) A curious fact arising in W.P.No.14007 of 2021 would also have to be noticed. This writ petition was filed by Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy as G.P.A holder of Sri V. Satyanarayana Raju and V. Sanyasi Raju. However, Sri V. Sanyasi Raju filed I.A.No.2 of 2022, in this writ petition, contending that he had never executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy and that his brother Sanyasi Raju had passed away about 14 years before the filing of the writ petition. e) After closure of W.P.No.14007 of 2021, the appellant herein entered the litigation by filing W.P.No.13784 of 2023 challenging the proceedings dated 10.05.2021. She also filed W.P.No.29427 of 2023 on the ground that the respondents had demolished the compound wall of the appellant, on 08.11.2023. The appellant contended that such demolition was arbitrary and highhanded especially on account of the pending litigation in W.P.No.13784 of 2023. 6. Sri P. Sree Raghuram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the possession of the appellant over the said land is demonstrated by the proceedings of 1982 of the Tahsildar and the orders of the erstwhile High Court of A.P dated 18.11.1997 in W.P.No.29603 of 1997. He would contend that the possession of the appellant could not have been disturbed without following due process and that the claims of the respondent authorities as well as the private respondents in the appeal, that they were in possession of the land is clearly incorrect. He would further submit that the land in question is classified as assessed waste dry and such land is not amenable for allotment or assignment to any person. In such circumstances, the allotment proceedings themselves are invalid and consequently the private respondents have no right or locus to move W.P.No.36828 of 2018. He would further submit that the land in question is classified as assessed waste dry and such land is not amenable for allotment or assignment to any person. In such circumstances, the allotment proceedings themselves are invalid and consequently the private respondents have no right or locus to move W.P.No.36828 of 2018. He would submit that the suppression of facts, by the private respondents, in this writ petition is sufficient to non suit them. 7. Sri O. Manoher Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri V.V. Satish learned counsel for the private respondents, would contend that it is the appellant, who has no locus in the matter. He submits that the entire claim of the appellant is based on the alleged deed of sale, dated 15.07.1999, on which stamp duty had been collected on 11.01.2022. He would submit that the deed of sale is requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. As this deed was admittedly not registered, the same is inadmissible on account of the bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act. In the absence of this deed of sale, the appellant cannot make any claim or seek any declaration of right over the said land. As far as possession is concerned, he would submit that the order of the erstwhile High Court of A.P, on 18.11.1997, in W.P.No.29603 of 1997 is concerned, the same has been passed, at the stage of admission, and is an innocuous order which would be applicable if the predecessors of the appellant had been in possession. No material had been placed either before this Court or before the erstwhile High Court to demonstrate such possession over the land. Except an alleged report of 1982, there is no other document to show possession of land in favour of Sri V. Rajan Raju or his children. A perusal of the proceedings relied upon by the appellant, does not inspire any confidence as it is a report typed on plain paper and no material has been placed before the Court to demonstrate that the said document is genuine. A further defect in the said document is the question of why such a report was generated when there is nothing in the alleged application of Sri V. Rajan Raju requiring such a report to be prepared. 8. A further defect in the said document is the question of why such a report was generated when there is nothing in the alleged application of Sri V. Rajan Raju requiring such a report to be prepared. 8. The contention of Sri V. Satyanarayana Raju, in his implead petition, in W.P.No.14007 of 2021 raises further doubts as to the authenticity of the alleged deed of sale said to have been executed in favour of the appellant. He would also submit that the deed of sale is said to have been executed in the year 1999. However, all subsequent proceedings were pursued by the children of Sri V. Rajan Raju till the entry of the appellant in the year 2023. He would also submit that no mention has been made, in any proceedings, by the alleged predecessors of the appellant that a deed of sale had been executed in favour of the appellant. Consideration of the Court: 9. The appellant claims locus on the basis of ownership and possession over the subject land. 10. The claim of ownership, by the appellant, is on the basis of an unregistered deed of sale dated 15.07.1999. It is an admitted fact that the said deed of sale is unregistered. In such circumstances, Section 49 of the Registration Act bars the consideration of such a document. In the absence of this document, there is no other document of title in favour of the appellant. Consequently, the claim of the appellant that she is the owner of the land cannot be accepted by this Court. To that extent she has no locus to file the present appeal. 11. However, the question of possession remains. The settled law is that, a person who is in possession, whether by legitimate means or illegitimate means, is entitled to the protection of law, to the extent of ensuring that the State does not use high handed methods to evict the occupants of land. The State is required to follow the procedure established under law in as much as such procedure has been to be in place to safeguard the rights of citizens and other persons from the highhanded actions of the State. 12. In the present case, the question of protection of possession would arise if the appellant is able to demonstrate, that she is in possession of the land. 13. 12. In the present case, the question of protection of possession would arise if the appellant is able to demonstrate, that she is in possession of the land. 13. The appellant seeks to demonstrate possession by relying upon the report of the Tahsildar dated 20.05.1982 and the order of the erstwhile High Court of A.P dated 18.11.1997 in W.P.No.29603 of 1997. 14. A report of the Tahsildar in 1982 is said to have been issued on the basis of an application made by Sri V. Rajan Raju on 30.06.1982 to the Revenue Divisional Officer and upon the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his letter dated 18.07.1980, to conduct an enquiry. The Tahsildar, in his report dated 20.05.1982, said to have been prepared in pursuance of the direction of the Revenue Divisional Officer, states that Sy.No.64/1 of Pedagantyada Village has a total extent of Ac.69.30 cents had been classified as Banjar land. The land claimed by Sri V. Rajan Raju was identified to fall in Sy.No.64/29 and Sy.No.64/30. The physical features of the said land showed that there were some cashew plants, aged about 2 to 3 months and a pucca wall constructed some time before the inspection on the western side of the land. The report further stated that enquiries had revealed that no assessment was paid by Sri V. Rajan Raju from 1970 and his claim that he had paid Rs.15/- towards B-memo charges was not supported by any evidence. In fact the record revealed that there was no such payment. The Tahsildar further reported that the land in question had been assigned to some other people but possession of the land was not given to these assignees even though changes have been incorporated in the village accounts. The Tahsildar concluded that Sri V. Rajan Raju was in occupation of the land since there was a retaining wall and the cashew plantation is said to have been raised by Sri V. Rajan Raju and that the possession of this land was confirmed by other adjoining ryots. A Xerox copy of the said report was placed before this copy along with neat typed copy. The Xerox copy is not certified by any authority. In fact the proceeding numbers etc., shown in the Xerox copy are not corroborated by any other document. A Xerox copy of the said report was placed before this copy along with neat typed copy. The Xerox copy is not certified by any authority. In fact the proceeding numbers etc., shown in the Xerox copy are not corroborated by any other document. The Xerox copy does not contain the signature of the Tahsildar, who is said to have given this report. In fact the document placed before this Court is the Xerox copy of a true copy of the report. In such circumstances, the lack of signatures or any endorsement certifying the copy raises any amount of doubt over the genuineness of this document. As such, it would be unsafe for this Court to rely upon such a document. 15. The direction of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.29603 of 1997 was at the stage of admission and obviously without any instructions being given to the Government Pleader for Revenue. The order merely records the contentions of the petitioners therein, that they are in possession of the land and disposes of the writ petition stating that the petitioner shall not be evicted until procedure established by law is followed. The stand of the official respondents has been that Sri V. Rajan Raju was not in possession of the land and infact the land had already been alienated to the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant for using the said land for rehabilitating the displaced persons. Further, the land is said to have been inspected by the Special Deputy Tahsildar to Land Acquisition, Steel Plant before the land was transferred to the steel plant. A report dated 12.04.1980 was sent by the Special Deputy Tahsildar to the Special Officer, Land acquisition, on the basis of this inspection. This report does not show any encroachment or occupation by Sri V. Rajan Raju. It is also stated that same D-form pattas had been given in relation to Ac.19.50 cents of land in Sy.No.64/20 to 64/34 and the remaining extent Ac.19.04 cents in Sy.No.64/1D and 35 are covered by some encroachments. The land in question is said to be in Sy.No.64/29 and Sy.No.64/30. This report certifies that there were no encroachments in 64/29 and 64/30, as on 1980. 16. The land in question is said to be in Sy.No.64/29 and Sy.No.64/30. This report certifies that there were no encroachments in 64/29 and 64/30, as on 1980. 16. After receipt of the said report dated 12.04.1980, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam transferred the land and placed it at the disposal of the Special Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation for using it to rehabilitate displaced families. There was a further report of the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition dated 28.10.1983. In this report, it was stated that about Ac.10.00 cents of land allotted to D-Form pattadars in Sy.No.64 had been purchased in the year 1970 by Sri Appala Narasimha Raju and payment of compensation, to him, at half of the land value to an extent of Ac.5.00 cents was approved. This report also does not mention any encroachment in Sy.No.64/29 and Sy.No.64/30 nor is the name of Sri V. Rajan Raju mentioned anywhere. 17. The records also show that the Special Deputy Collector had handed over plots to about 10 of the displaced persons in May, 2021 under land handover receipts. 18. In the circumstances, the contention of the official respondents as well as the private respondents that the appellant was not in possession of this land would have to be accepted. 19. Consequently, the appellant has neither ownership nor possession of the land and has no locus to file the present Writ Appeal. In the circumstances, W.A.No.943 of 2023, W.P.No.13784 of 2023 and W.P.No.29427 of 2023 are dismissed. 20. In W.A.No.115 of 2024, the State seeks leave of the Court to ascertain whether the persons who are seeking possession of the plots are the persons who are named in the rehabilitation lists under which they had been allotted the land. The private respondents/their family members, are said to have been issued ‘R’ cards vide proceedings dated 19.08.2005, allotting plots of 107 sq.yards each to them. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is disposed of permitting the State to verify the bonafides of the private respondents only to the extent of ascertaining whether they are the persons to whom ‘R’ cards have been issued or whether they are the legal heirs of deceased recipients of such ‘R’ cards. 21. Accordingly, W.A.No.943 of 2023, W.P.No.13784 of 2023 and W.P.No.29427 of 2023 are dismissed and W.A.No.115 of 2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. Accordingly, W.A.No.943 of 2023, W.P.No.13784 of 2023 and W.P.No.29427 of 2023 are dismissed and W.A.No.115 of 2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.