THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No. 269 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The present Writ Appeal is ﬁled seeking writ of mandamus in dispossessing the petitioners from the lands to an extent of Ac.5.00 in S.No.86/2 of Gunnepalli village, Dammapeta mandal, Khammam District. The learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioner is a non-tribal and occupied the land to an extent of 5 acres in S.No.86/2 and the Revenue Department has initiated land acquisition proceedings by issuing a notice to evict him under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Dammapeta by proceedings dated 20.5.1995 has directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dammapeta not to dispossess the petitioner and continue him in possession of the said land as encroacher as per G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 12.1.1971. But, however, when the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer tried to dispossess his brother from the lands an extent of Ac.5.00 in S.No.118 and 121/1, the petitioner has ﬁled Writ Petition No. 24332 of 1998. This Court by an order dated 28.8.1998 has directed the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Dammapeta Mandal not to dispossess them from the lands without following due process of law. Again when a notice has been issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to dispossess the petitioner, the Writ Petition No. 15912 of 1999 has been ﬁled and the learned Single Judge while admitting the Writ Petition by an order dated 29.7.1999 in W.P.M.P.No. 19629 of 1999, directed the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner. But, however, the learned Single Judge has also recorded the statement of the respondents in the counter to say that the petitioner was dispossessed from the suit schedule lands on 13.8.1998 and that pattas were granted to the respondent Nos.4 to 10 who were tribals. In view of the assertions made in the counter that the petitioner was already dispossessed on 13.8.1998, the observations of the learned Single Judge that they should not be dispossessed or the possession should be redelivered back to the petitioner has no basis for the reason that the petitioner is not able to assert his right over the land. But, however, in view of the fact that the petitioner was already dispossessed on 13.8.1998, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we make it clear that still, if the petitioner feels that any cause of action has arisen, the question of allotment order granting of pattas to respondent Nos. 4 to 10 and in view of the above observations, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy open to him under the law, if he still continues to be in possession. With the above observations, the Order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. ________________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 5.8.2008 CHV