IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16661 of 2006 Between: Ravva Jogaiah and others ... PETITIONERS a n d The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are nine in number, seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to dispossess and dismantle their thatched houses from the lands situated at Chukkalapadu village, near Edugurallapalli village, Chinthur mandal, Khammam district without following the procedure prescribed under Land Encroachment Act is illegal, void and opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. This is the second journey of the petitioners to this Court. Earlier the petitioners filed W.P.No.6618 of 2004 assailing the action of the District Collector, Khammam in not considering their representations dated 19-08-2002 and 17-03-2004. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 07-04-2004. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder: “The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have made representations dated 19-08-2002 and 17-03-2004 to the respondents for assignment of lands in their favour. He, however, complains that no orders have been passed by the respondents on the representations made by the petitioners and they remained unanswered. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider the representations of the petitioners, dated 19-08-2002 and 17-03-2004, for assignment of lands in their favour and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously.” 3. The petitioners’ grievance in the instant writ petition is that pending consideration of the representation by the District Collector, the respondents herein are contemplating to dispossess them from the land in their occupation. For better appreciation of the grievance of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to refer the relevant portion of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which reads as hereunder: “… … … As on today the District Collector, Khammam did not pass any order and taking steps for assignment of the lands in favour of the Tribal petitioners herein. Taking undue advantage of the inaction of the District Collector, the 2nd respondent herein sending the departmental officials to dismantle the houses of the petitioners herein and destroyed the agriculture crops raised by the petitioners herein. One of the photograph of the thatched house of the petitioners here is filed in the material papers for ready reference. Nearly 5 thatched houses was dismantled by the 2nd respondent and his department people in the 2nd week of July, 2006 and now the 2nd respondent is again taking steps to dismantle the remaining thatched houses and also taking steps to dispossess the petitioners herein from the lands in question. The said action of the 2nd respondent is opposed to Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioners have no alterative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of filing this writ petition to protect their interest.” 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 20-07-2007. Status quo order was passed on 04-09-2006 vide WPMP No.20861 of 2006 in W.P.No.16661 of 2006. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter and moved WVMP No.3185 of 2007 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 04-09-2010 passed in WPMP No.20861 of 2006. 5. The sum and substance of the counter-affidavit of the second respondent is that the petitioners are not in occupation of any of the forest lands and therefore, the question of their dispossessing from the lands in their occupation does not arise. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that there is no village called Chukkalapadu village in the forest area. 6. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners made representations to the District Collector and their representations are pending consideration and while the representations are pending consideration, the respondents are contemplating to dispossess them from the lands in their occupation and it necessitates the petitioners to approach this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forest appearing for respondents submits that the petitioners are not in occupation of any of the forest lands and therefore, the question of dispossessing them from the forest lands does not arise. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in view of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 came into force liberty may be given to the petitioners to make an application to the concerned authorities for allotment of the lands in the forest area. 10. In view of the representation made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to make representations to the concerned authorities for allotment of land under Act 2 of 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Interim order granted on 04-09-2006 shall stand vacated. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 19, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16661 of 2006 July 19, 2010