IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8204 of 2000 Between: 1. Smt.Gayam Pullamma, W/o.Nagesh, 29 years. 2. Smt.Gayam Satyavathi, W/o.Venkatesh, 32 years. 3. Smt.Gayam Nagasri,W/o.Chennarao, 29 years. Allr/o.Kommepally (V), Sathupally (M), Khammam District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. District Collector, Khammam. 2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Sathupally (M), Khammam District. 3. Sri Naseerkhan, S/o.Madarkhan, 40 years, H.No.1-94, Karaigudem (V), Penuballi (M), Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: NONEAPPEARED Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Revenue Counsel for the Respondent No.3: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8204 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in protecting the interest of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Perused the record. In their affidavit, the petitioners avered that they were allotted house plots bearing Nos.13, 14 and 17 in Survey No.128 of Kommepally (V), Sathupally (M), Khammam District and have erected small huts over the said plots. They alleged that on 30.04.2000, respondents 2 and 3 came to the sites and tried to dispossess them by force. The petitioners pleaded that it is the duty of respondent No.2 to protect their possession, more so when the petitioners are tribals and instead, in collusion with respondent No.3, he has been trying to evict the petitioners. In support of their plea, the petitioners filed copies of assignment orders. No counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents 1 and 2. There is no appearance for respondent No.3 in spite of service of notice. In the absence of denial of the allegations contained in the affidavit, the same deserves to be accepted as correct. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the plots for which they were granted assignments so long as the said assignments continue to subsist. In the event respondents 1 and 2 require the properties of the petitioners, they cannot acquire the same without following due process of law. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 10th July 2008 RRB