IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.250 of 2011 Between: Velagapalli Ranga Rao & others. ..... Petitioners AND State of AP, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Panchayat Raj Department, Hydeabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Sita Ram Chaparla Counsel for respondents 1&3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri G. Elisha The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.250 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings ROC.No.3/3/2010, dated 21.12.2010 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3. I have heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2. The petitioners are in possession of the land comprised in Sy.No.487/1 of Perikeedu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District. When they faced threat of dispossession from respondent No.2, they earlier filed Writ Petition No.21282 of 2010. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following observations: “From the pleadings and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that so far no proceedings culminating in eviction of the petitioners have been initiated. If the respondents feel that the petitioners are in occupation of tank or tank bed land, they are entitled to evict the petitioners only after following due process of law. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the land in question without initiating the proceedings under the relevant provisions of law.” Purporting to follow the said order, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2 has issued the impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2010. A perusal of the said proceedings shows that though the same is styled as a notice, it is practically in the nature of a final order directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments. In my opinion, before coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are liable for eviction, they should be given a notice to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also criticized the impugned proceedings and in my opinion justifiably that respondent No.2 has failed to realize that the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1964 was repealed and replaced by the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Mentioning of the repealed Act shows non- application of mind on the part of respondent No.2. However, I am not inclined to invalidate the impugned proceedings only on that ground. Instead of setting aside the impugned proceedings, the same is directed to be read down treating the same as a notice. The petitioners are permitted to submit their objections within a period of three weeks from today. On receipt of the objections, if any, respondent No.2 shall consider the same on their merits and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.286 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.01.2011 ES