The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.27140 of 2010 Date: 03-12-2011 Between: Kancherla Rama Rao and 2 others ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: AGP for Social Welfare The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in seeking to evict the petitioners from the land bearing Survey No.222 to an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas with M/s.Priya Silk House situated at R & B Road, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District, without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner No.1 claimed that he is the owner and possessor of the aforesaid land; that in the house constructed thereon, he is running cloth business in the name and style of M/s.Priya Silks and; that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his partners. As the subject property is situated in agency area, respondent No.5 initiated proceedings for eviction of petitioner No.1 by registering case No.233/87/MGR. However, by Order, dated 14-12-1987, respondent No.5 has dropped further action on the ﬁnding that petitioner No.1 is the cultivator of the said land since the year 1961. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is trying to illegally evict the petitioners from the said land without following due process of law. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that after ﬁling of the Writ Petition, in which an interim order of status quo has been granted on 02-11-2010, respondent No.4 has informed the petitioners that petitioner No.1 has suﬀered an order of eviction in another case and that therefore, he should vacate the subject land. The learned Counsel further stated that the veriﬁcation by his clients revealed that the Order of eviction, which respondent No.4 has referred to, does not pertain to them. In the absence of any counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondents, the version of the petitioners, that the Order passed by respondent No.5, on 14-12-1987, in favour of petitioner No.1 attained ﬁnality, needs to be accepted. Unless any Order of eviction against the petitioners is passed thereafter, respondent No.4 cannot interfere with their possession of the subject land. Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioners claimed that a notice was issued after ﬁling of the Writ Petition, a copy thereof has not been ﬁled. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such notice, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Similarly respondent No.4 shall strictly follow the procedure, prescribed under the A.P.Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1 of 1969 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970, if he intends to evict the petitioners from the lands in question. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order, dated 02-11-2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.34681 of 2010 is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 3rd December, 2011 LUR