THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.910 and 922 of 2008 Between: Smt.Yerukola Vijaya Kumari and another. .. PETITIONERS and The State of A.P. and others. .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.Nos.910 and 922 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Since similar questions that arise for consideration in these writ petitions, the same are taken up together for disposal by way of common order. It is the case of the petitioners that the 5th respondent in W.P.No.910 of 2008 being an ex-serviceman was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.5-00 cents in Sy.No.383/1 vide proceedings D.R.No.226/1402, dated 20-06- 1993, and the 5th respondent in W.P.No.922 of 2008 being an ex- serviceman was assigned the land admeasuring Ac.4-88 cents in Sy.Nos.357/2 and 375/2 respectively vide proceedings D.R.No.237/1402, dated 29-11-1992. The lands assigned in favour of ex-servicemen are not alienable for a period of ten years and after expiry of ten years, the ex- servicemen are entitled to alienate the lands as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1117. Accordingly, the 5th respondent in W.P.No.910 of 2008 as well as the 5th respondent in W.P.No.922 of 2008 sold the lands in question in favour of the petitioners through registered Agreement of Sale-cum-G.P.A. bearing document No.4192/02, dated 02- 12-2002 and registered Sale Deed bearing document No.4194/02, dated 02- 12-2002 respectively. It is further stated that earlier the vendors of the petitioners and others filed W.P.Nos.4101 of 2005 and 17166 of 2006 before this court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent herein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and some other lands, as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petitions were disposed of through a common order, dated 11-10- 2007, directing the 4th respondent herein to conduct an enquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and decide as to whether the proceedings relied on by the petitioners are genuine or not and if they are not genuine, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Thereafter, the petitioners also filed W.P.Nos.27915 and 27916 of 2007 before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 herein in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petitions were disposed of through a common order, dated 28-12-2007, holding that the writ petitions filed by the vendors of the petitioners i.e., W.P.Nos.4101 of 2005 and 17166 of 2006 were disposed of after filing counters and in fact the petitioners cannot get better title than their vendors and further it was directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the D.R. proceedings. However, the petitioners were permitted to file objections before the 4th respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the order of this court in W.P.Nos.27915 and 27916 of 2007, dated 28- 12-2007, the petitioners filed objections before the 4th respondent on 07-01- 2008 and without considering the objections, the lands in question are sought to be auctioned on 27-01-2008. Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, submits that pursuant to the order of this court, dated 11- 10-2007 in W.P.Nos.4101 of 2005 and 17166 of 2006, notices were issued to the vendors of the petitioners and the notice was served on Goseti Rajulu, who is the 4th petitioner in W.P.No.1401 of 2005. However, the notices sent to other vendors of the petitioners were returned unserved with an endorsement ‘no such addressee in the address’. Therefore, the enquiry was adjourned and substitute service was made by way of publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily News paper on 31-12-2007. But, none of the vendors appeared before the 4th respondent herein and accordingly, the 4th respondent herein conducted an enquiry and passed an order in proceedings in Rc.No.139/2005/ARI, dated 07-01-2008 stating that no such applications were found in the Dharakhast Register and D.R.Files and if really there were applications/dharkhasts, the names of the vendors of the petitioners would have been recorded in the Dharakhast Register and the relevant D.R.Files. Therefore, it cannot be said that D.R. proceedings are genuine documents. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Bheemunipatnam, is directed to take possession of the lands in question. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the validity of the order passed by the 4th respondent in proceedings in Rc.No.139/2005/ARI, dated 07-01-2008. However, the said order has not been questioned either by the petitioners or the vendors of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the objections were filed, pursuant to the orders of this court in W.P.Nos.27915 and 27916 of 2007, dated 28-12-2007, there cannot be any justification in passing the said order. Admittedly, the so-called objections were filed on 07-01-2008 itself and on which date, the 4th respondent passed the said order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have filed objections well in time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant any relief as prayed in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to question the order of the 4th respondent, dated 07-01-2008, in proceedings Rc.No.139/2005/ARI. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 25-01-2008 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow (B/o) Prv