IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 2975 of 2001 Between: 1.K.V.Mallikarjuna Rao S/o K.V.Ramaiah R/o Velugodu Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 2.Molla Abdul Razak S/o Abdul Khader R/o Velugodu Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 3.S.Abdulla S/o S.Ahmed Hussain R/o Velugodu Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 4.B.Shamilla Khan S/o B.Saheb Khan R/o Velugodu Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 5.Shaik Khairam Bi W/o Abdul Gaffoor, R/o Velugodu Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 6.K.Mohamood Haneef S/o Abdul Salam R/o Velugodu Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. 7.Rokammagari Murtheza S/o Gokari Saheb R/o Velugodu Village & Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Velugonda Mandal, Kurnool District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4 The Govrenment of Andhra Pradesh, Rep ny its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ order or direction more appropriately a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 not interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Scheduled Lands of the Petitioners and from inducting any other person Schedule Lands. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.E.AYYAPU REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.2975 of 2001 ORDER: Questioning the notice, dated 02.12.1998, whereby the petitioners were informed that they had failed to bring the lands assigned to them into cultivation within three years from the date of assignment and that the land was needed for a public purpose, the present writ petition is filed. Through the said notice, the petitioners were given an opportunity to submit their reply within 15 days. This Court in its order, dated 28.02.2001, observed that the petitioners cannot be dispossessed from the lands in question without there being any order pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 02.12.1998 and accordingly, granted interim directions as prayed for. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. While Sri E.Ayyapu Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would state that despite a legal notice being submitted in reply, no final orders are passed, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment would state across the Bar that resumption orders were indeed passed. This Court in its order, dated 07.11.2008, directed the learned Government Pleader to produce the records in proof of service of the cancellation proceedings upon the petitioners. Despite five adjournments thereafter on 01.12.2008, 04.12.2008, 12.12.2008, 15.12.2008 and 19.12.2008, records have not been produced. Even today, except to reiterate the statement that the respondents had passed resumption orders neither the records have been produced nor a counter affidavit has been filed. I see no justification either to grant further adjournment or take note of the submission made across the Bar that resumption orders were passed and communicated to the petitioners herein. It is needless to state that unless and until a final order is passed pursuant to the show cause notice and such an order is communicated to the petitioners, they cannot be dispossessed of the lands in question. Leaving it open to the respondents to pass final orders and communicate the same to the petitioners herein, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps to dispossess the petitioners until then. No costs. _____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan, J Dt.17.03.2009 VGB