IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:26273 of 2000 Between: 1 Pithani Narasimha Rao S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Konithiwada Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District 2 B. Sankara Raju S/o. Rama Raju R/o. Konithiwada Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Narsapur West Godavari District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Veeravasaram West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. Y.V.SRINIVASAN FOR MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 21.12.2000 issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District (respondent No.2). The petitioners claimed that for more than 40 years, their families are in occupation of small extent of lands in R.S.No.126/14 of Konithiwada Village. They also claimed that the Gram Panchayat granted permission to them for construction of houses and allotted House Nos.1-39 and 1-36 to petitioner Nos.2 and 1 respectively. They alleged that at the instance of certain third parties, respondent No.2 issued the impugned proceedings directing the petitioners to vacate the land in their occupation for the purpose of construction of a compound wall. They assailed the said proceedings on the ground that the same are not preceded by any notice and opportunity of hearing. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. The fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the Government land is admitted. However, they plead that their possession is longstanding and unobjectionable. It is also their case that even assuming that the encroachment is objectionable, they cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. I have perused the impugned proceedings, which, though styled as notice, are in the nature of a ﬁnal order directing the petitioners to vacate the land in question. Even if the petitioners are in occupation of the Government land, in view of their longstanding possession, respondent No.2 ought to have given them a notice calling for their objections and pass an order after considering the same. Such a procedure is mandatory to evict a person, who is an unauthorized occupant of the Government land, under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. As no such procedure is followed, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to follow due process of law to evict the petitioners, if they are not already evicted. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni