IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15054 of 2005 Between: 1 Bunga Hema Latha, W/o.Satyanarayana, R/o.Kuthukuluru, Anaparthi Mandal, E.G.district. 2 Mandapalli Ganga Raju, S/o.Talupullaiah, R/o.Kuthukuluru, Anaparthi Mandal, E.G.district. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry,E.G.district. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anaparthi, E.G.district. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri.K.K.Krishna for Sri N.Siva Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P for Revenue (Assignments) The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the leaned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri K.K.Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for the respondents. This writ petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the property in question as illegal and arbitrary. In their affidavit, the petitioners claimed that they are the permanent residents of Kutukuluru Village, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District, that as they were not owning houses of their own, they erected thatched houses in the vacant Government site in Adi Andhra Colony of the said Village, that the said land remained vacant after the Government, which acquired larger extent, distributed house site pattas to schedule caste people and that since the petitioners are eligible for assignment, they represented to the respondents to grant pattas. The petitioners averred that their occupation is not objectionable and as they are eligible for grant of house site pattas, the action of the respondents in seeking to evict them is arbitrary. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District-respondent No.2, he admitted the fact that on a part of the left over land after distribution of house sites to the persons belonging to schedule caste, the petitioners raised huts and are living therein. He stated that the said vacant site was a communal site in Adi Andhra Colony, which was reserved for future communal needs i.e., for construction of school buildings, anganvadi buildings, community halls etc., and that the petitioners high-handedly encroached the site and constructed thatched huts. He claimed that a notice was given to the petitioners to vacate the land in their occupation. As noted above, the petitioners admitted that the land in their occupation belongs to the Government. Except claiming that they applied for house site pattas, they have not filed any material in support thereof. Respondent No.2 claimed that he issued notice to the petitioners. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has not produced record to show that such notice was served on the petitioners. In the face of the admitted fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the Government land, the respondents are entitled to evict the petitioners by following due process of law. As no material is produced to prove that a notice has been served on the petitioners, as claimed by respondent No.2, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction of the petitioners. Until respondent No.2 follows the procedure to evict the petitioners, he is not entitled to dispossess the petitioners. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.167 of 2006 is dismissed as infrucutous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 24th June, 2008 vrn