THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.22416 of 2010 Dated: 28.09.2010 Between: Tanneru Subba Rao and others. … Petitioners. and The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru, and others. … Respondents. ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in taking action upon the letter in ROC.No.371/2010(A), dated 07.08.2010, addressed by the Tahsildar-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Buttaigudem, to the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, Buttaigudem, whereunder the 3rd respondent was directed to take necessary action against the trespassers as and when they obstruct the petitioners and their family members in cultivating their lands, the petitioners filed this writ petition. The petitioners claim to be the owners of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2.53 cents in R.S.No.39, Ac.0.92 cents in R.S.No.40, Ac.2.48 cents in R.S.No.41, Ac.1.21 cents in R.S.No.42 and Ac.3.34 cents in Rs.No.43/3, having succeeded to the same from their ancestors. While so, based on the complaint given by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R.Puram, initiated proceedings under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Rules, 1969 framed under Regulation 1/1959, (for short ‘Regulation 1/1959’), against the petitioners and their family members, on the allegation of their contravening the provisions of Regulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970, conducted enquiry, and ultimately, passed orders in favour of the petitioners and their family members on 26.08.1997 in S.R.No.100 of 1997. The grievance of the petitioners is that as some of the tribals of Jainavarigudem were not allowing them to cultivate the subject lands, a representation was made to the Tahsildar, Buttaigudem, on 24.07.2010, to provide necessary protection to them in cultivating their lands. Pursuant thereto, the Tahsildar, vide his letter in ROC.No.371/2010(A), dated 07.08.2010, directed the 3rd respondent- Station House Officer, Buttaigudem Police Station, Buttaigudem, to take necessary action against the trespassers as and when they obstruct the petitioners and their family members in cultivating their lands, and also to take the assistance of the Village Revenue Officer concerned as regards the identification of the subject lands as well as the identification of trespassers and report compliance, but so far the 3rd respondent has not taken any action thereupon. Hence, this writ petition. The 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, Buttaigudem, filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that pursuant to the directions of the Tahsildar, Buttaigudem, in his letter dated 07.08.2010, necessary police aid was provided to the petitioners. It is also stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem, is taking steps to prevent all the tribals in the area not to interfere with the lands of the non-tribals and has arrived at an amicable solution with several tribal and non-tribal land owners, and the case of the petitioners is pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the guise of negotiations, which the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem, is trying to make with the tribals in order to arrive at an amicable solution, there are chances of interfering with the lands of the petitioners. Since the relief sought for by the petitioners confines to the inaction of the respondents in taking action on the letter dated 07.08.2010 addressed by the Mandal Executive Officer/Tahsildar of Buttaigudem, to the 3rd respondent, and the same has been complied with by the respondents by providing necessary police aid to the petitioners, which is clearly evident from the averments made in the counter affidavit, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be only an apprehension and, as such, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. However, it is made clear that if any orders are passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem, contrary to the orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector in S.R.No.100 of 1997 dated 26.08.1997, which were passed in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are always at liberty to challenge such contrary orders. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 28.09.2010 v v