IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23842 of 2008 Between: 1 Gandham Satyanarayana S/o. Late Venkanna R/o. D.No. 18-2-39, Near Range Ice Factory, Narasapur, West Godavari District. 2 Pusala Vinayanaka Babu S/o. Late Narayana Rao R/o. Near Range Ice Factory, Narasapur, West Godavari District. 3 Papa Veera Venkata Subrahmanyeswara Rao S/o. Ramachandra Rao R/o. Near Range Ice Factory, Narasapur, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The South Central Railways, Vijayawada, rep. by its Estate Officer, Addl. Divisional Railway Manager 2 The Tahsildar, Narsapuram (M), Narsapuram. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus and declare the action of the respondents without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity, trying to disposes the petitioners from the Door. Nos.18-2- 38, 18-2-39 and 18-2-39/1 respectively are highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice, consequently to direct the respondent not to disposes from the petitioners house bearing D.No.18- 2-38, 18-2-39 and 18-2-39/1 and Assessment No.6675 in Narasapuram, West Godavari District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.S.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them without issuing any notice and giving them an opportunity to put forth their case from the houses bearing D.Nos.18-2-38, 18-2-39 and 18-2-39/1 situated at Narasapuram, West Godavari District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondent railways. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject matter of houses having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 11.1.1983. Earlier, when the respondents tried to interfere with their possession of the houses, they filed a suit O.S.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru seeking permanent injunction against the defendants and status quo orders were granted. Thereafter, the plaint papers were returned to be presented before the appropriate court but since there was some delay in representing the papers, they filed a delay condonation petition and the same was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, they filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same is pending. The grievance of the petitioners is that even during the pendency of the appeal, the respondents are trying to evict them from the houses in question. Sri P.Gangirami Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents has produced before the court relevant record. A perusal of the record discloses that initially on 30.12.2003, a notice in Form-A under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Amendment Act, 1980 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioners. Thereafter an order in Form-B under Sub- Section (2) of Section 5 of the Act was passed on 23.02.2004 declaring the petitioners to be encroachers and directed them to vacate the premises within 15 days of the date of publication of the order. It is stated that the petitioners have neither challenged the said orders nor vacated the premises. While the matters stood thus, on 31.10.2008, certain similarly placed persons, including the petitioners herein approached the Sub-Collector, Narsapur requesting him that they required three months time i.e. upto 31.1.2009 to vacate the encroachments. Considering their request, the Sub-Collector requested the railway officials not to initiate any action to evict the encroachers till 31.1.2009 as requested by them. The learned standing counsel submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents on 23.2.2004 directing them to vacate the premises, the appropriate remedy is to file an appeal against the said orders under Section 9 of the Act before the concerned District Court. Admittedly, as against the orders passed under Section 5 of the Act, an appeal lies. Since the petitioners themselves along with certain others sought extension of time to vacate the premises, they cannot now contend that they are not aware of the orders passed on 23.2.2004 and, therefore, they cannot be evicted from the houses in question. For the foregoing reasons, I see no reasons to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.2.3.2009 msv.