THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18351 OF 2010 DATE: 28.07.2010 Between: Injam Seetaramaiah and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Warangal Zone, Warangal District and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18351 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in taking steps to evict the petitioners on the basis of the impugned notice dated 16.07.2010 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had earlier filed civil suits seeking perpetual injunction restraining the 1st respondent herein from interfering with the property in question and the said suits were decreed granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering or evicting the plaintiff from the suit schedule land until he is evicting by due process of law under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’). Pursuant to the said decrees, the petitioners state that they are in continuous possession of the property in question. While so, the impugned notice dated 16.07.2010 came to be issued by the 2nd respondent purportedly under Section 83 of the Act alleging that the occupation of the petitioners is illegal and calling upon them to vacate voluntarily from the respective lands within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice failing which action would be taken under Section 83 of the Act. Apprehending forcible dispossession pursuant to the said notice, the present writ petition is filed. The contents of the impugned notice are unambiguous and it is nothing but an intimation to the petitioners about the steps proposed to be taken under Section 83 of the Act i.e., proceedings for recovery of possession following due process of law. Hence the apprehension of the petitioners that they would be evicted forcibly is without any basis and unfounded. Be that as it may, as the learned counsel for the respondents stated that the proceedings under Section 83 of the Act have not yet been initiated, while leaving it open to the respondents to initiate such proceedings, the Writ Petition is disposed of making it clear that in the meanwhile, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the land in question without following due process of law. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.07.2010 Ivd