IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 393 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 22/02/2008 in WP NO : 3704 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Gogineni Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Late Satyanarayana Rao, H.No. 10-5-5, Mamillagudem, Khammam. Khammam. 2 Gollapudi Sangameswara Rao S/o.late Chennayya R/o.Ramalayam Street, Khammam. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Gollapudi Babu Rao, S/o. late Chennayya, R/O. Ramalayam Street, Khammam. 2 Gollapudi Sangameswara Rao, S/o. late Chennayya, R/O. Ramalayam Street, Khammam. 3 The District Colector Khammam District, Khammam. 4 The Tahsildar, Khammam (Urban) Khammam District. 5 The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 393 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri BPR,J.) 1 Heard Sri Rajamalla Reddy learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Amarendra Kumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, and also the learned Government Pleaders for Home and Revenue and at their request the writ appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2 Appellant is the fourth respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 1 and 2 herein ﬁled the Writ Petition for a writ of mandamus inter alia seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 3 to 5 herein in trying to evict them from the land situated in R.S.No.29 to an extent of Ac.1.06 Gts of Khammam town without following the due process of law is illegal and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 3 The learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition at the admission stage with a direction that the fourth respondent herein shall not dispossess the petitioners therein without following due process of law. However, the Writ Petition against the appellant was dismissed. 4 The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that having regard to the earlier civil litigation between the parties, which was suppressed by the Writ petitioners and as that fact was not taken into consideration, the direction given by this Court would come against the appellant and the same is being misused. Hence this appeal. 5 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also having regard to the fact that the Writ Petition was disposed of at the stage of admission without providing an opportunity of being heard or for ﬁling of counter by the appellant, it is expedient that the matter be heard on merits and dispose of on merits once again, to which both the counsel have also acceded to. 6 Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.3704 of 2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned single Judge for fresh disposal on merits after providing an opportunity of being heard to both sides. No order as to costs. ------------------------------- B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ------------------------------- R. KANTHA RAO, J. 23.09.2008 kvsn ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {SPJS}