THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31678 of 2010 Dated 09th November, 2011 Between: Pinnamaneni Laxmi Narasamma and another …Petitioners And The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Naram Nageswarao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in interfering with the petitioners’ agricultural operations in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.1.73 cents in R.S.No.75/2A and Acs.4.66 cents in R.S.No.75/2B of Swarnavarigudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Even though notice is served on respondent No.4, no one entered appearance on his behalf. The petitioners, who are mother and son, are the owners of the above-mentioned property. In the year 2001, the Special Deputy Tahsildar-I, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram filed a complaint under Section 3(2)(a) of the A.P.Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970) (for short ‘the Regulation’) for eviction of petitioner No.1. After a full-fledged enquiry, the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R.Puram passed order on 05.01.2003 in S.R.No.460/2001 holding that petitioner No.1 has not contravened the Regulation. Again in the year 2006, at the instance of one person, by name, Punem Pentayya, eviction proceedings were initiated against petitioner No.2. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, vide his order, dated 20.04.2007, has also held that petitioner No.2 has not violated the provisions of the Regulation. The petitioners plead that both these orders have attained finality. Their grievance is that in spite of the said two orders finding their possession as lawful, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the said land at the instance of respondent No.4. As no counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents controverting the above averments of the petitioners, this Court has no option other than accepting the same as correct. Therefore, a mandamus shall be issued to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the above-mentioned land without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40286 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th November, 2011 VGB