THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29601 of 2011 Dated 05th November, 2011 Between: P.Krishna Murthy …Petitioner And The Government of A.P., rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Social Welfare (LTR-1), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Venkatesh Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Social Welfare The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in entertaining the representation, dated 05.09.2011, of respondent No.5, as regular suit in O.S.No.3 of 2011, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P.Agency Rules, 1924 (for short ‘the Rules’). The petitioner sought for quashing of the proceedings in O.S.No.3 of 2011. The petitioner is in occupation of Acs.12.48 cents of land in Survey Nos.83/1 and 83/2, Indukurupeta Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. According to the petitioner, his grandfather originally purchased the said land in the year 1936 and by way of a registered partition deed, dated 15.10.1966, he has acquired right over the said property, which is situated in the agency area of East Godavari District. The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Devipatnam filed a petition before respondent No.4 under Section 3(1) of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, for restoration of the land after ejecting the petitioner. The said petition was numbered as L.T.R.P.No.124 of 2004 and was dismissed by respondent No.4 by order, dated 02.11.2004. The Special Deputy Tahsildar filed an appeal against the said order before respondent No.3, who entertained the same as C.M.A.No.88 of 2005, and allowed the said appeal directing eviction of the petitioner. The revision petition filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 is pending. The petitioner pleaded that respondent No.5 got himself impleaded in the said revision. The immediate cause for the petitioner to file the present writ petition is the notice issued by respondent No.2, wherein he directed the petitioner to be personally present for enquiry in O.S.No.3 of 2011. The notice has shown respondent No.5 as the petitioner and the petitioner as the respondent. The only ground on which the present writ petition is filed seeking this Court’s interference with the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 is that respondent No.5 has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Rules in general and Rule 14 of the Rules in particular. The petitioner averred that respondent No.5 has presented a representation before respondent No.2 in his capacity as Revenue Divisional Officer, for initiating proceedings as Agency Divisional Officer. In my opinion, this writ petition is in the nature of prohibition. Ordinarily, a writ for prohibition will not be entertained unless it is pleaded and substantiated that the authority which initiated the proceedings inherently lacks jurisdiction or initiation of such proceedings constitute abuse of process of law. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the suit. The only objection of the petitioner as noted above is that proper procedure as envisaged under the Rules is not followed while entertaining and numbering the suit. These aspects deserve to be raised by the petitioner before respondent No.2. Even though the petitioner has claimed that he has raised objections before respondent No.2, no proof in support thereof has been adduced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no written objections were filed by the petitioner as to the maintainability of the suit before respondent No.2. Unless the petitioner has raised objections in writing with a request to respondent No.2 to reject the suit, the cause for him to approach this Court would not arise. In the premises as above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file written objections before respondent No.2 as to the maintainability of the suit. If such objections are filed, respondent No.2 shall entertain and dispose of the same in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36657 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05th November, 2011 VGB