1. The petitioners, 26 in number in essence seek a Writ of Mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from agricultural lands situate in various survey numbers of Guntupalli and Gudurupadu Villages of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal of Krishna District inspite of the Judgment rendered in O.A.Nos.1-15 of 2003 rendered by the District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Thefirst respondent is the South Central Railway while the second respondent is its Estate Officer at Vijayawada.

3. It is stated that in the year 1975, 600 acres of land has been acquired compulsorily for the purpose of enabling the Indian Railways to establish a wagon repair workshop at Guntupalli, nearby to Vijayawada City in Krishna District. Lands belonging to the petitioners have also formed part of the overall extent of lands that stood acquired by the railways. The land acquisition proceedings have reached finality in all respects. Compensation as per the market value has been paid to each of the persons to whom the land belongs to was acquired. However, the Indian Railways have put to immediate use only 400 acres of land and established its wagon workshop as well as a residential township for use by its officers, employees and workmen. Out of the remaining 200 acres of vacant land, when the petitioners approached the railway authorities for grant of lease in their favour of approximately 100 acres for carrying on agricultural operations under the ‘Gromore Food Scheme’ on payment of license fee, their requests were conceded. The petitioners were required to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per acre per year as License Fee. Each one of these petitioners have been granted license over approximately 4 to 5 acres of land permitting them to cultivate the same upon payment of license fee every year. There is no default committed by the petitioners in payment of the annual license fee. However, the Estate Officer passed orders on 18.12.2001, directing the petitioners to vacate the lands without properly considering the explanation offered by them to the show cause notice issued earlier in that regard. Therefore, the petitioners have preferred appeals in terms of Section 9 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, by instituting O.A. Nos.1 to 15 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The learned District Judge by his Judgment dated 12.06.2007, allowed the appeals holding that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, would not apply to agricultural lands and that the said act is attracted to only residential premises obtained on lease basis and it does not apply to a premises which has been obtained on license. The learned District Judge has also found fault with the notice issued by the Estate Officer for it’s failure to mention the date of hearing requiring the parties to appear with relevant material etc. However, the Estate Officer has once again drawn a notice in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, on 06.06.2008 requiring the petitioners to put in their explanation on or before 25.06.2008 as to why an order of eviction should not be made against them. The petitioners filed their initial response seeking further fifteen days time for filing a detailed reply in the matter, but however drawn the attention of the Estate Officer to the Judgment rendered by the District Court on 12.06.2007 in O.A. Nos.1 to 15 of 2003 to which the Estate Officer was a party. Though the petitioners solicited fifteen days time period, but nonetheless, they have not filed the detailed explanation as the railways are deemed to have dropped all further action in that regard after their attention has been drawn to the Judgment rendered earlier by the District Court. However, when the railways deployed their Railway Protection Force Constables near about the land, thus preventi