IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11788 of 1999 Between: 1 P.Pullanna S/o.Papanna R/o.Raptadu Village & Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 P.Kondanna S/o.Ramappa R/o.Raptadu Village & Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 Ramakrishna S/o Papanna R/o.Raptadu Village & Mandal, Anantapur District. 4 P.Narayana S/o.Ramappa R/o.Raptadu Village & Mandal, Anantapur District. 5 Ganji Peddanna S/o.Thimmappa R/o.Raptadu Village & Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Raptadu Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 The District Collector, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners without considering our representation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequentially set aside the impugned notice R.C.No.333/99/B dt.5-5-99 issued by the 1st Respondent in respect of the land in Sy.No.468-10-A & 462 of Raptadu Village & Mandal, Anantapur District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.CHANDRAIH NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: The order impugned in the writ petition is the notice dated 05-05-1999 of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Raptadu Mandal, Anantapur District, whereby the petitioners were informed that the land they had occupied, and had put up hayricks in some of the survey numbers of Raptadu village, was allotted for construction of a primary health center and that the petitioners should vacate the premises immediately. Petitioners were informed that, in case, they failed to do so, appropriate action would be taken to evict them in accordance with law. The petitioners contention that the said notice is, in fact, an order, does not merit acceptance since all that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has stated in the notice, while calling upon the petitioners to vacate the land, is that, in case, they failed to do so, action would taken to have them evicted in accordance with law. Since the action proposed to be taken, to evict the petitioners, is only in accordance with law, the impugned notice cannot be faulted on this ground. With regards the petitioners’ contention that they were in occupation for more than three decades, it is not for this Court to examine all these questions in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the petitioners from bringing these facts to the notice of the respondents by way of a representation and, in case, such a representation is submitted within a period of one month from today, the respondents shall take into consideration the said representation before initiating action to have the petitioners evicted in accordance with law. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:21-08-2008 Usd To 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Raptadu Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 The District Collector, Anantapur District. 3 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4 Two CD copies.