THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 1713 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 and 2 in trying to evict the petitioners from the land in an extent of Ac.0-10 cents in R.S. No. 7/2 of Mandapadu area, Gudivada Town and abutting South Central Railway line between Gudivada and Machilipatnam; consequently, to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners on 10.3.2003 and notices dated 28.12.2004 and 18.1.2005 and cancel eviction orders. It appears, petitioners were granted house site patta in an extent of Ac.0-10 cents of land in R.S.No.7/2 of Mandapadu area, Gudivada Town and abutting South Central Railway line between Gudivada and Machilipatnam after getting permission from the Executive Engineer, Conversion, Gudivada through Letter No.W/271/BMC dated 3.5.1963 addressed to the Tahsildar. Petitioners also constructed a small house thereon and living since then. Now, it appears, respondents have issued notice in Form-A and calling for explanation of the petitioners as to why they shall not be evicted from the property by invoking the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Amendment Act. Petitioners submitted their explanation for the same. However, the respondents have issued Form ‘B’ notice on 20.12.2003 ordering to vacate the subject premises. Hence this writ petition. There is no necessity of going into all the details. In the counter filed by respondents, at para 7 it is stated that Form ‘B’ notices were issued to the petitioners by oversight under routine but no action was taken by the respondents. Further, the enquiry has been made and a report has been submitted to 2nd respondent, who will proceed further in the matter. It is further stated that the contention of the petitioners in para 5 of the affidavit is incorrectly averred. Though eviction notices were issued on 20.12.2003, no further action was taken by the respondents and it shows that the respondents are not doing any illegal act. At para 15 of the counter affidavit, it is again stated that after passing the eviction order dated 20.12.2003, which was issued inadvertently along with other encroachers, no action was taken but factually enquiry was conducted in the presence of the petitioners and 2nd respondent has to pass orders after perusing all the material on record and hearing the petitioners. As noticed above, respondents themselves have stated in more than one place that notices were issued inadvertently along with other encroachers. Once this is so, the question of issuing Form ‘A’ or Form ‘B’ notices dated 23.5.2003 and 20.12.2003 respectively seeking to evict the petitioners does not arise. Therefore, the impugned notices in Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ are liable to be set aside, particularly, in view of the fact that the very assignment was made in favour of the petitioners after obtaining proper permission from the railway authorities way-back in the year 1963. The impugned notices in Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ dated 23.5.2003 and 20.12.2003 respectively are accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 20-01-2011. MVB.