IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25014 of 2000 Between: Anisetti Durga Rao & another. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25014 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioners without following due process of law from the lands admeasuring Ac.1.50 cents and Ac.1.78 cents in R.S.Nos.7/4 and 7/2 of petitioner No.1 and Ac.1.00 in R.S.No.42 of petitioner No.2 of Jayanavarigudem Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary and against the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation No.1 of 1959 as amended by Regulation 1 of 1970 (for short, ‘the Regulation’). At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners purchased the abovementioned lands prior to the commencement of Regulation 1 of 1970 through possessory agreements, which were subsequently registered and that as the possessory title was vested in them, they are not liable for eviction. They speciﬁcally averred that respondent No.2 informed them that their possession is in contravention of the Regulation and hence, they are not entitled to harvest the standing crop. According to the petitioners, they cannot be evicted without following due process of law. No counter-aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondents. In the absence of any denial of the averments contained in the aﬃdavit by the respondents, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioners are in possession of the property in question. If they are holding the abovementioned property in violation of the Regulation, it is incumbent upon the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings for their eviction. Without taking recourse to such a procedure, the respondents cannot unilaterally conclude that the possession of the petitioners is unlawful and on that premise the respondents cannot seek their eviction or interfere with their possession. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the abovementioned lands without following due process of law under the provisions of the Regulation. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.31919 of 2000 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.08.2008 ES