IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.10831 of 2008 Between: Palacherla Sathi Raju and 7 others ..... Petitioners AND 1.The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari District and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri.Aka Venkataramana Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Social Welfare Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a prohibition to restrain respondent No.1 from proceeding with LTRP.No.2 of 2008 and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring 32.47 Hectares in Survey Nos.35, 42/9, 9, 44, 4, 5, 42/3, 6, 42/8, 10, 12, 13, 56/4 and 56/2 of Mallavaram Mamillu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. At the hearing, Sri Aka Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that when the issue, relating to the petitioners’ possession over the lands referred to above, cropped up in another Writ Petition being W.P.No.35068 of 1997, this Court, by Order, dated 19th January, 2004, allowed the same by holding that the petitioners are entitled to be granted ryotwari pattas under Section 5 of the Mutta Regulations. The learned Counsel further submitted that Writ Appeal No.889 of 2004, filed against the said Order, was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. He has, therefore, submitted that in view of these judgments, the notice issued by respondent No.1 is wholly misconceived. Indisputably, in pursuance of notice issued in LTRP.No.2 of 2008, the petitioners have filed their objections and the same are pending before respondent No.1. So far, no order has been passed against the interests of the petitioners. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that respondent No.1 suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction as he is the competent authority, under the A.P.(Scheduled Area) Land Transfer Regulations 1959 read with regulation 1/70, for initiating proceedings for ejection of the persons, who are found to be in illegal occupation of the lands situated in scheduled areas. The petitioners, therefore, rightly approached respondent No.1 with objections, which need to be considered and decided by him in the light of the findings rendered by this Court in the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal referred to above. Therefore, in my opinion, this Writ Petition is wholly premature. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the orders that may be passed by respondent No.1, they are entitled to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not be construed, by respondent No.1, as rejecting the pleas of the petitioners’ advanced on the merits of the case. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 21-05-2008, is vacated and WPMP.Nos.9334 and 14128 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 15th June, 2011 lur