IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7336 of 2005 Between: Valasa Padu Dora, S/o. Butchanna Dora R/o. Venkatareddygudem, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, PolavaramMandal, West Godavari District. 3 Station House Officer, Polavaram P.S. Polavaram, West Godavari District. 4 Soddama Subbaiah S/o. Buliswamy West Godavari District. 5 Siddana Venkateswara Rao S/o. Subbaiah West Godavari District. 6 Siddana Ganga Raju S/o. Subbaiah West Godavari District. 7 Siddana Nageswara Rao S/o. Subbaiah West Godavari District. 8 Siddana Satyanarayana S/o. Subbaiah West Godavari District. 9 K. Seethapathi S/o. Seetaramayya West Godavari District. 10 K. Satyanarayana, S/o. Seetaramayya West Godavari District. 11 K. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana S/o. Ramachandra Rao, West Godavari District. 12 Anisetti Rajababu, S/o. Seetharamayya, West Godavari District. 13 Jallepalli Subba rao S/o. Jiyyanna West Godavari District. 14 T. Ramesh S/o. Mutyalayya West Godavari District. 15 Jallepalli Venkatraju S/o. Venkata Narasayya West Godavari District. 16 Kamisetti Sesha Rao S/o. Dorayya West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI K.Balagopal Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondents 4 to 12, 15 & 16: Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao Counsel for Respondents 13 & 14 : Sri N.Vijay The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The grievance of the petitioner, who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and claims to represent as many as 47 tribals of Itikalakota Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, is that on individual communications issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, they are sought to be dispossessed from the lands in their occupation in R.S.No.11(a) of Itikalakota Village, Polavaram Mandal, without following due process of law. A perusal of the respective pleadings of the petitioner and the contesting respondents shows that there is a serious dispute with respect to the possession of the lands in question. It is, however, an admitted fact that in respect of these lands, the contesting respondents were granted settlement pattas and that the petitioner and 47 others claim that they are in occupation of the said lands. Their only grievance is that if the contesting respondents assert their right and title over the lands in question on the basis of the settlement pattas, they cannot dispossess the petitioner and 47 others, with the aid of respondents 1 and 2, without following due process of law. The individual communications by which the petitioner and other tribals are offended show that respondent No.2 issued proceedings described as “Endorsement for land disputes settled/unsettled in the Agency Mandals of Jangareddygudem Division”, wherein in the result column, it is endorsed that “claim is allowed by the Settlement Officer in favour of the persons named therein.” However, copies were marked to various functionaries such as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddygudem; Joint Collector, West Godavari District and Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem apart from to the Station House Officer, Polavaram for necessary action. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this communication suggests that on the basis of the said proceedings issued by respondent No.2, the Station House Officer, Polavaram-respondent No.3 is requested to take action. At the hearing, Sri Badana Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 12, 15 and 16, and Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel appearing for respondents 13 and 14, candidly submitted that communication of a copy to respondent No.3 cannot be construed as respondent No.2 requesting the Station House Officer to evict the petitioner and other tribals if they are in possession. They stated that after verification of the title of the non-tribals, respondent No.2 merely marked copies of the proceedings to various functionaries including the Station House Officer, Polavaram and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddygudem for information. But a perusal of the said proceedings shows that while copy to the Station House Officer, Polavaram was marked “for necessary action”, copies to the other three functionaries were marked “for information”. From this, it is evident that on the basis of the said proceedings, respondent No.2 intended to take necessary action against the tribals in occupation of the land. None of the respondents are able to trace the power of respondent No.2 to request respondent No.3 to take action on the proceedings issued by him to any statutory provision. Therefore, I am of the considered view that on the basis of the said proceedings, respondent No.3 cannot initiate any action for eviction of any person, who is allegedly in unauthorized occupation of property, without following due process of law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP Nos. 2065 of 2005, 1149 of 2006 and 2 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 3rd July, 2008 vrn