IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.280 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04.01.2002 in W.P.NO.392 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Duba Krishna Rao S/o Suryanarayana, R/o Seetham peta Villaga & Mandal Srikakulam District. ...APPELLANT AND 1 The Joint Collector, Srikakulam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakonda Srikakulam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Seethampeta Mandal Srikakulam District. 4 Duba Govinda S/o Narayana, R/o. Seethampeta Village and Mandal Srikakulam District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.A.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.280 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the sides. The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who sought a Writ of Mandamus, inter alia, seeking to assail the proceedings dated 06.01.2000 in Rc.No.3415/98 E1 of the first respondent for eviction from the house bearing No.C.4-26 situated in Survey No.45 of Seethampeta Village and Mandal, Palakonda Revenue Division, Srikakulam District, as arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, which are not in dispute, are that the contesting fourth respondent herein is the original assignee, from whom the appellant purchased a small extent of Ac.0.04 cents, where, according to him, he has constructed a house. However, on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, proceedings have been initiated for eviction. It is the case of the petitioner that both the fourth respondent and himself are non-tribals and poor persons and therefore, the question of evicting them does not arise. However, after considering the same, the primary authority did not find favour with the said plea. The orders are also confirmed in the appeal and also in the revision. Hence, the appeal. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, the appellant cannot be said to have any enforceable right or otherwise, as pointed out, to seek any indulgence in order to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 15th July 2009 RRB