IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURBALE SRI JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO W.P. No. 18560 OF 2005 Dated : August 22, 2005 Between: Tumu Srinivasa Rao and another Petitioners AND The District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and two others. Respondents THE HONOURBALE SRI JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO W.P. No. 18560 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER: Aggrieved of the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the petitioners from the lands an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in RS No. 441/1 and Ac.0.50 cents in RS No. 441/3 situated at Chigurukota village, Mudinepally Mandal, Krishna District, the present writ petition is filed. It is submitted that the petitioners have purchased the above extent of lands under registered documents and they have been paying taxes regularly. It is further submitted that the lands are not assigned lands. While so, without issuing any notice, the officials of the respondents visited the lands and threatened them of dispossession. Therefore, the petitioners came up with this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The issue involved in this writ petition is no more res integra in view of the guidelines issued by a Division Bench of this court in Pilli Lakshmana Rao and others Vs. Executive Officer, Gram Panchayath, Challapalle and others (), wherein it is held that when any property is required for public purpose, the authorities straightaway cannot take the law into their hands and jump into the premises and attempt to evict the occupants or dispossess them from their property. Before taking any such action, the authorities concerned shall issue a notice notifying as to the nature of the property, the purpose for which it is required, to whom it belongs and the action proposed calling for explanation or objections, if any, from the occupants and after considering the said objections or explanation, the authorities shall pass appropriate orders. Having regard to these guidelines, the respondents are directed to follow the guidelines issued in Pilli Lakshmana Rao case, if they intend to dispossess the petitioners, as averred in the affidavit. With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Elipe Dharma Rao, J. August 22, 2005 MAS.