THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.20606 of 2011 Between: 1. Palika Bala Raju and another PETITIONERS And 1. The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kimar Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2: G.P. for Revenue Counsel for the respondent No.3: Sri G. Elisha Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned G.P. for Revenue for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri G. Elisha learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3 and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at this stage. This writ petition has been filed complaining the action of the respondents seeking to take possession of the property of the petitioners situated in S.Nos.394/3A and 394/2C of Ramanayyapeta Village, Kakinada, East Godavari District, without following due process of law, as illegal. According to the petitioners the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.16 cents situated in the aforesaid survey numbers was in possession and enjoyment of their grandfather. The petitioners have succeeded to the said property and constructed houses after obtaining the required permissions. It appears that the right of the petitioners is under challenge at the instance of the East Godavari District Police Employees Cooperative House Building Society, in a civil proceeding. The petitioners claim that the said land is Government land and that the 3rd respondent-Gram Panchayat has no right to evict them. As an attempt was made on 01.07.2011 to evict them forcibly without notice, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioners have occupied the Panchayat land and hence they are liable to be evicted. Though notices dated 8.07.2011 have been issued to the petitioners calling upon them to vacate the land, there is no response from them. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, denies the said statement and states that the petitioners have not received any such notices. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that admittedly the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Therefore, unless the 3rd respondent follows the procedure contemplated by law, the petitioners are not liable to be evicted forcibly. Even though, the 3rd respondent has taken the stand that the petitioners were put on notice, no material is placed before this Court in that regard. In the circumstances I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent not to evict the petitioners except by following due process of law. It is clarified that the 3rd respondent shall serve fresh notice on the petitioners and take appropriate action as per law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 20th August, 2011. Js.