IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 388 of 2008 Between: Kusam Gangarami Reddy S/o Late Rami rEddy Palacharlarajavaram, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jeelugumilli, West Godavari District. 3 Kalagara Srinivasa Rao S/o Rama Rao R/o Palcharlagudem Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari 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 issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent in evicting the petitioner from his land situated in R.S. No. 3/3 an extent of Ac. 3.74 cts of Palacharlarajavaram, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land situated in R. S. No. 3/3 and extent Ac. 3.74 cents of Palacharlarajavaram Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District without following due process of law and to pass such further order or orders as are necessary in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 388 of 2008 ORDER: It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.3.74 cents in R.S.No.3/3, of Palacharlarajavaram, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West-Godavari District, having purchased the same in the year 1968. It is stated that the said land is adjacent to main road, and at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the 2nd respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, is making attempts to allot the same in favour of the 3rd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. I have gone through the record, and I am not inclined to express any opinion, as to the title of the property. In so far as the relief claimed as against the 3rd respondent is concerned, he is the unofficial respondent, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief against him. However, the grievance of the petitioner as against the official respondents, they cannot evict him, without following the due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question, without following the due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ Dt.26-02-2008. V.ESWARAIAH, J. Note: Office to issue c.c. by tomorrow. (B/O) KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}