IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13316 of 2009 Between: Sri Shaik Ibrahim, S/o. Madan Sha, R/o. Kerameri Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahsildar, Kerameri (Mandal), Adilabad District. 3 The Project Officer, ITDA (Integrated Tribe), Utnoor Taluka, Adilabad District. 4 Sri Banoth Dasriya, S/o. not aware to the petitioner, R/o. Kerameri Village & Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings no Rc.No. B/113/09, dated 26-6-2009 to the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and accordingly direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of the law in respect land in Sy.No. 94 PP land totally Ext 1-00 Ac kerameri Village and Mandal Adilabad District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.R.MOHD.IRFAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The order dated 26-6-2009 of the 2nd respondent (impugned herein) is an intimation to the petitioner that he has illegally encroached Ac.1-00 of Government land in Sy.No. 94 PP which is under the cultivation of the 4th respondent a Tribal, in Kerameri Village a scheduled area. The petitioner admits to having illegally occupied the Government land but claims to be in possession and denies the possession of the 4th respondent. The fact that Kerameri Village where the land is situate is a scheduled area is not disputed. The impugned notice states that the petitioner should not occupy the Government land in a scheduled village and that the 4th respondent who is a Scheduled Tribe should be put back in possession, failing which legal action would be taken. Prima facie, the impugned proceedings does not per se constitute any proceedings for eviction of the petitioner. It merely sensitizes the petitioner that should he fail to vacate occupation of the Government land or fail to hand over possession of the land to the 4th respondent a Tribal, in the context of the land being in a scheduled area, legal proceedings would be initiated. It is always open to the State to initiate appropriate legal proceedings either under the Land Encroachment Act or the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 as amended in 1970 to evict the petitioner from occupation of the scheduled land. In the circumstances, the impugned proceeding does not call for interference. Needless to mention that the official respondents must take recourse to the due process of law to evict the petitioner and cannot pursue his eviction, if he is in possession of the property without following the due process of law. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 7th July, 2009. GRR