THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5600 OF 2010 DATED:11.03.2010 Between: Valluru Murali and others .. Petitioners And The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5600 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners herein who are 22 in number are residents of Thotlavalluru Village and Mandal in Krishna District. They occupied land admeasuring Ac.0.45 cents each in R.S.No.166/6/A to Q (total extent Acs.09.92 cents) and cultivating the same by growing vegetables, sugarcane and turmeric etc. They filed W.P.No.2522 of 2010 seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents therein namely District Collector and Tahsildar from threatening to dispossess them without due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 09.02.2010 observing that “the petitioners are in possession of the land, belong to the Government, they cannot be dispossessed except by initiating proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905”. Thereafter, on 22.02.2010, the third respondent herein issued notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act) calling upon the petitioners as to why they should not be evicted from the Government land. In response thereto, all of them sent their representation to Tahsildar requesting for issuance of pattedar pass books and consider their case on humanitarian grounds. On considering the same, the third respondent passed a detailed order on 04.03.2010 ordering eviction, as the land is required to provide house sites to flood victims of Pamulalanka Village. The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Thotlavalluru is directed to evict the petitioners from the subject land. Assailing the said order dated 04.03.2010, the present writ Petition is filed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area), opposed the Writ Petition. He submits that the petitioners did not avail the alternative remedy under Section 10 of the Act by filing appeal before the second respondent and therefore the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that the petitioners are landless poor persons and if they are evicted from the meager extents of land in their possession they would be deprived of their livelihood. He also made submissions questioning the procedure adopted by the third respondent in issuing the impugned order. However, it is not necessary to go into these matters, as the effective remedy is available to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada, and in this Writ Petition no relief can be granted. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 11.03.2010 KH