IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.25292 of 2000 Between: J.Ramesh and five others. … Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Md.Asibuddin for Sri M.Ramarao. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue for R.1 to R.4. None for R.5. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in damaging the constructions already made by the petitioners and interfering in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building plots bearing Nos.6-47/1, 6- 47/4, 6-47/5, 6-47/6, 6-47/3 and 6- 47/2 respectively in Survey No.1907/17 situated a t Prashanthnagar Gram Panchayat, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District, without giving any prior notice to the petitioners and not following the directions issued in Writ Petition No.243 of 1993 dated 2-7-1997 and without following the procedure contemplated in the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In their aﬃdavit the petitioners claimed that they have purchased the above mentioned properties from their successors in interest; that when the respondents sought to interfere with the possession of petitioners 1 to 4, they ﬁled Writ Petition No.243 of 1993 and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 2-7-1997 with the direction to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Siddipet, to furnish copies of orders canceling the assignments and permitting petitioners 1 to 4 to ﬁle appeals before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Siddipet, who is the appellate authority. It is averred in the aﬃdavit that petitioners 1 to 4 have made applications on 10-7-1997 and 11-7-1997 to respondents 3 and 4 respectively to supply copies of the orders, and that they have not heeded to the said request of the petitioners, but have been interfering with their possession and seeking to damage the structures raised by them. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on order dated 10-8-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.8378 of 2000. The said Writ Petition was ﬁled by one Sri Veeramallu Rajesham and another, wherein they questioned the action of the respondents in stopping them from constructing the houses as per the sanctioned plan in Survey No.1907/17 situated in Prasanthnagar Gram Panchayat, Siddipet Mandal, Medak District. I have carefully perused the said order. From the said order it is not known whether the petitioners therein also ﬁled a Writ Petition similar to petitioners 1 to 4 and any directions were given in such a Writ Petition. It is the petitioners’ own case that they ﬁled Writ Petition No.243 of 1993, in which the respondents stated that by proceedings dated 22-12-1992 the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer passed order of eviction and taking note of the said fact the Division Bench permitted petitioners 1 to 4 to ﬁle an appropriate appeal before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, and the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer was directed to supply copies of eviction orders to the petitioners 1 to 4. The petitioners stated that they approached respondents 3 and 4 immediately after disposal of the said Writ Petition for supply of copies, but as they have not supplied, they could not file the appeals. In my opinion, if the respondents have not supplied the copies, as directed by this Court, the petitioners are not remediless. They should have initiated appropriate proceedings against the respondents to ensure that they supply copies to them in order to enable them to avail the remedy of appeal as directed by the Division Bench. By merely purporting to make representations for supply of copies, the petitioners cannot sleep over the issue for more than three years and to ﬁle the present Writ Petition on the plea that as the respondents have not supplied copies of the orders, they could not ﬁle the appeals. The fact that some eviction orders were passed is not speciﬁcally disputed by the petitioners. Therefore, unless they question the validity of those orders and succeed in doing so, they cannot prevent the respondents from taking possession of the properties. In this view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any ground to grant relief to the petitioners and prevent the respondents from acting in pursuance of the orders of eviction. Even now the petitioners are at liberty to question the eviction orders. To facilitate them to do so, respondent No.4 is directed to furnish copies of the eviction orders to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today. For a period of eight weeks, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the properties in the occupation of the petitioners. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ------------------------------ ------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.04-8-2008 MNR