HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27001 of 2009 Date : 9-6-2011 Between : Maloth Bujji w/o.Swamy .. Petitioner And The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 : A.G.P. for Social Welfare The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not implementing the ejectment orders passed by respondent No.1 in LTR Case No.5/2007/MGR dated 24-8-2007 in respect of restoration of plot No.10 in Sy.No.138/1, Ashok Nagar, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District as illegal. The petitioner has obtained an order of ejection under the provisions of A.P. (Scheduled Areas) Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) r/w. Regulation 1 of 1970. Respondent No.1 by his order dated 24-8-2007 ordered ejection of respondent No.3 and directed restoration of the plot to the petitioner. An ejectment decree and an order of restoration of possession of land were issued in Form-F on the same day. On the ground that the said decree is not executed, the present Writ Petition is filed. At the hearing, it has come out that an identical relief claimed in W.P.No.27038/2009 was rejected by this court by relegating the petitioner therein to submit an application before respondent No.2 with a prayer to execute the decree passed in her favour. This court directed that as and when such an application is filed, respondent No.2 shall take necessary steps in accordance with law after issuing notices to the affected parties. It is apt to extract the relevant part of the order in that case : “Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer while adjudicating the disputes brought before them under the Regulations. Sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules indicates the manner in which the order passed for ejectment or eviction is to be executed, which reads as under: - “Where the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer or the Officer referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 has decided that a person in possession should be ejected under sub-section (2) of Section 3 he shall pass a decree and order in Form ‘F’ and such decree and order shall be executed by the officer specified therein in the manner in which any decree of ejectment by a competent Civil Court is executed.” From this, it becomes clear that whenever an order of eviction is passed by the authority concerned, a decree is to be drawn in Form-F and the same shall be executed by the officers specified therein. In the instant case, a decree in Form-F was drawn and the Tahsildar, Manuguru, the second respondent, was named as the officer to take steps for restoration of possession in favour of the petitioner. However, that is not the end of the matter. The petitioner has to take the decree before the second respondent and make a representation or application for executing the same. The provision extracted above mandates that the order shall be executed in the same manner in which a decree of a civil Court is executed. During the course of execution, the necessity to verify the third party claims, if any, may arise and spot inspection may become necessary. There may be cases where an altogether different party is in possession and enjoyment of the property, though the adjudication may have taken place between two individuals some times, in collusion with each other. In such an event, the Tahsildar, the second respondent, has to address the issue and resolve the same either by himself or by taking the same to the notice of the authority who passed the order. All this would become possible only when an application is filed for execution. The petitioner cannot expect the Tahsildar, the second respondent, to take all the steps without any application being made by her. The very fact that the steps to be taken by the second respondent were equated to a decree passed by a civil Court discloses that a formal application needs to be filed and notices to the concerned parties, be issued. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make any such application. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit an application before the second respondent with a prayer to execute the decree passed in her favour. As and when such an application is filed, the second respondent shall take necessary steps, in accordance with law, duly issuing notices to the affected parties.” Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that this case is identical to W.P.No.27038/2009. Therefore, following the order passed therein, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms thereof with the direction that the observations and directions contained in the said order shall form part of this order. As a sequel, WPMP Nos.35174/2009 is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-6-2011 AM