THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8596 of 2011 Dated 01st April, 2011 Between: Peddimsetty Satyam and another …Petitioners And The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1: AGP for Endowments Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri D.V.Sashidhar For Sri V.T.M.Prasad The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from Ac.0.01 cent each in Survey No.259 of Korangi Village, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, through impugned notice, dated 09.03.2011, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. I have heard Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.V.Sashidhar, learned counsel, representing Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioners claim to be the owners of Ac.0.01 cent each in the above-mentioned survey number and has been in possession of the same since 1960. They have averred that they have constructed a thatched hut in the said property and obtained electricity connection. They have also averred that they were taking care of the land admeasuring Acs.6.32 cents in Survey No.257 belonging to respondent No.2 and leased out to one Vatsavai Venkata Sita Rama Raju. It is their pleaded case that on account of the said lessee falling ill and bed ridden, the said land was taken possession by respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the guise of taking possession of the land belonging to respondent No.2, they are sought to be dispossessed through the impugned notice issued by respondent No.2. On a careful perusal of the impugned notice, I am of the view that respondent No.2 has put the petitioners on notice that they are in possession of Ac.0.10 cents belonging to respondent No.2 and that if they do not vacate the land within seven days, necessary action will be taken for their eviction. I do not find any illegality in this notice because respondent No.2 has merely directed the petitioners to handover possession. This notice cannot be considered as an order of eviction or that if the petitioners fail to handover possession, they will be forcibly dispossessed. As noted above, respondent No.2 has indicated to the petitioners that necessary action will be taken for their eviction, which necessarily means that respondent No.2 will follow due process of law, if they do not vacate the premises. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10681 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 01st April, 2011 VGB