THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2563 of 2011 Dated 08th February, 2011 Between: Kandala Chandrasekhar Reddy and another …Petitioners And The Forest Range Officer, Aswapuram, Khammam District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Forests The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Acs.9.20 guntas comprised in Survey Nos.190/550 and 190/136 of Nellipaka Village, Aswapuram Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and unconstitutional. I have heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests. The petitioners claim to be owners of the above-noted land. They have filed the material, such as, pattadar pass books and title deeds, extracts of revenue records, in support of their plea of ownership. Their grievance is that respondent No.1 has been unduly interfering with their possession of the land by claiming that it is a forest land. It is, however, pleaded that no proceedings have been initiated and no order has been passed by any of the respondents against them. Under Section 20(3) of the A.P.Forest Act, 1967, where a person contravenes the provisions of sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (vii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1), a forest officer not below the rank of a Ranger, a police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector or a revenue officer not below the rank of a Deputy Tahsildar, may evict a person from the forest land. The proviso to the said provision, however, stipulates that before taking any such action, the officer concerned shall give an opportunity to the person affected to make any representation, against the action proposed. In view of the above-noted mandatory provision of law, respondent No.1 cannot interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the property, without following the procedure prescribed by the statute. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the land referred to above, without initiating and passing an appropriate order under the above-noted provision. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3173 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th February, 2011 VGB