HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27940 of 2011 Date : 23-11-2011 Between: Maddala Madan Mohan and another .. Petitioners And The Additional Agent to the Government-cum- Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, East Godavari District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar for Sri S.R. Sanku Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare The court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in orally asking the petitioners to handover possession of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.8-54 cents in Sy.No.69/3 and Ac. 4-34 in Sy.No.75, situated in Kimmuru village of Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, without issuing a notice or without initiating any execution proceedings under Rule 7(4) of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Rules 1969, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim that they belong to Kondakapu caste of Scheduled Tribe community; that their great grand- father Maddala Venkata Swamy acquired lands in the year 1902; that since then their family had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further the pleaded case of the petitioners that respondent No.4 passed eviction orders for restoration of lands to the Government on finding that the family of the petitioners is non-tribal; that the said order was confirmed in C.M.A.No.24/84, by respondent No.1 on 7-3-1988 and that W.P.No.5530/88 filed challenging the said order was dismissed on 21-12-1998. The petitioners pleaded that their father was a party to those proceedings and that even after the dismissal of the Writ Petition, as the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land, no proceedings as per Rule 7 of the Rules have been initiated to dispossess them. The petitioners also claimed their rights under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (Act 2 of 2007) (for short "the 2006 Act"). The attempted dispossession of the petitioners by the respondents is therefore termed as illegal. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the order passed by respondent No.2 and confirmed by respondent No.1 and this Court against the petitioners’ father has attained finality. While dismissing the appeal, in his order, respondent No.2 has held that possession of the land by the father of the petitioners was in contravention of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Transfer Regulation 1 of 1959, as amended by Regulation No.1 of 1970. It is further stated that in pursuance of the Judgment in C.M.A.No.24/84, the respondents have followed due process of law for eviction of the petitioners and possession was taken under mediators’ report on 24-3-1988 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala Mandal. The petitioners’ claim that they are entitled to be conferred rights under the 2006 Act is also denied by stating that they are not forest dwellers and that no such claim has been made so far and even if such a claim is made, the burden is on them to prove the said fact. The fact that the petitioners have suffered orders from the hierarchical authorities under the Regulations which were confirmed by this Court in a writ petition is admitted by the petitioners. While the petitioners assert that they are still continuing in possession, in the counter-affidavit it is unequivocally stated that possession was taken under a mediators’ report by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addateegala on 24-3-1988. Even though the petitioners have filed certain copies of purported receipts evincing payment of land revenue, it is not possible for this Court to render a finding on the genuineness or otherwise of the same. The petitioners cannot claim a better right than their father had. When admittedly, the father of the petitioners had suffered successive orders from the competent authorities which were confirmed by this Court, the petitioners cannot claim right over the property. For seeking a mandamus, the petitioners are required to establish their legally enforceable right or a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the State or its instrumentalities. Even assuming that the petitioners are in possession of the property, there is a direction in the ejectment order to take possession. The official respondents are therefore entitled in law to take possession of the property in question. The respondents cannot be interdicted from discharging their official functions in pursuance of the orders passed by the competent authorities. With regard to the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to be conferred rights under the 2006 Act, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have so far made any claim before the competent authority for conferment of such rights. The respondents have denied the plea of the petitioners that they are forest dwellers. Since the burden is on the petitioners to prove that they are forest dwellers, if and when they make such a claim, it will be for the competent authority under the 2006 Act to decide the same. Therefore, no relief, based on the plea of the petitioners relating to the 2006 Act can be granted in this Writ Petition. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, with costs. As a sequel, WPMP No.34459/2011 and WVMP No.37962/2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 23-11-2011 AM