IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No: 783 of 2002 Between: Suram Buchamma, W/o. Late Suram Narasaiah, R/o. Venkatapuram, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District. 3 Gatti Chandra Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Vengalraopet, Patrapuram Post, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of the 1st respondent the Agency Divisional Officer, Bhadrachalam passed in L.T.R.Case No.333/97/VKP, dt. 11.12.2001 against the dead person (petitioner's husband's brother died in the year 1987) is illegal and void and opposed to Art.14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 783 of 2002 O R D E R: The petitioner, herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of Ac.3.32 cents of land situated in Sy.No.58/2 of Koyabestagudem village, Venkatapuram Mandal, Khammam District, which forms part of a notified scheduled area. According to the petitioner the said land originally owned by one Suram Somaiah, a tribal who died in the year 1997. It is claimed that on the death of Somaiah, being his sole legal heir, the petitioner succeeded to the land in question and has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, Agency Divisional Officer, Badrachalam having initiated proceedings under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) by order dated 11-12-2001 in LTR.Case No.333/97/VKP directed ejectment of the third respondent herein, holding that he was cultivating the land in question in contravention of the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959. Accordingly, the said land was ordered to be restored to the Government. Pursuant thereto, when the respondents 1 and 2 were attempting to resume the land by dispossessing the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that the order dated 11-12-2001 which was passed making a dead person as a party to the proceedings and without notice to the petitioner was null and void and at any rate since the possession of the petitioner cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever the proposed dispossession is arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing Rule nisi, granted interim order dated 03-01-2002 protecting the possession of the petitioner and the same continued to be in operation all through. Despite notice, the respondents did not choose to file any counter and nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the order in LTR.Case No.333/97/VKP was passed after notice to the petitioner therein i.e. Suram Sammaiah or the petitioner herein who claims to be in possession. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the land in question forcibly on the basis of the eviction order dated 11-12-2001 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in question in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 21-11-2008 KLP