THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26257 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner was allotted a plot, carved out of Survey No.91/1 of Bhadrachalam Revenue Village, Khammam District, by the Government. The land was taken over from Kusumaharinath Baba Temple, governed by the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987. A tribal organization initiated proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector, Bhadrachalam, under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959 read with Regulation 1 of 1970 alleging that the land, which is in scheduled area, is transferred in favour of non-tribals. The effort made by the petitioner to get himself impleaded in those proceedings did not fructify. Ultimately, the Special Deputy Collector passed an order, dated 12.04.2007, directing eviction. The petitioner constructed four shops in the plot allotted to him. The possession of the shops was resumed and was handed over to Bhadrachalam Municipality, respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner filed C.M.A.No.24 of 2007 before the Additional Agent to Government/Project Officer, ITDA, respondent No.2 herein, against the order of eviction, dated 12.04.2007. At that time, respondent No.1 proposed to conduct auction of leasehold rights of four shops resumed from the petitioner. A notification to that effect was issued on 23.11.2007. The petitioner challenges the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Tribal Welfare for respondent No.2. The petitioner lost possession of the shops constructed by him in the course of implementation of the orders, dated 12.04.2007, passed by the Special Deputy Collector. Unless the order of eviction is set aside, he cannot get possession of the premises. Once he is out of possession, the petitioner cannot challenge the steps taken by respondent No.1 putting the leasehold rights to auction. He would not get the benefit in any way. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.1 shall take immediate steps for conducting auction. It is directed that in case the petitioner emerges as highest bidder or expresses his willingness to pay the highest bid amount as rent, he shall be permitted to run the shops purely in the capacity of a lessee, which in turn shall be subject to the outcome of C.M.A.No.24 of 2007. Respondent No.2 shall endeavour to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 03.02.2011. kdl