The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to prevent the State from excavating gravel from their land because they had suppressed the fact that the land was taken over by the State in 2010.

JUDGMENT

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - This Court has heard Sri Ramana allu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The prayer in WP.No.13252 of 2020 is as follows:

'to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularity one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the 2 to 4 Respondents not to excavate gravel from the petitioners agricultural land in Survey Nos.7/2, 7/3, 7/4 and 7/4-part for the total admeasuring ac.13.50 cents in Kesavaram Village, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District pending consideration of the written explanation dt. 19.06.2020 acknowledged on 20.06.2020 and Representations Dt. 16.07.2020 before the 3rd Respondent for their Notice dt 04.06.2020 in pursuance of the Orders in WP Nos.8274, 8290 and 8291 of 2020 dt 28.05.2020 in the interest of justice by declaring the Respondents arbitrary action is being illegal, high handed and violation of articles 14, 211, 300-a of the Constitution of India..'

2. In the other three writ petitions referred to namely WP.Nos.23731, 23743 and 23744 of 2021, the prayer is to conduct an enquiry by considering the written explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice pursuant to the order dated 28.05.2020 in WP.Nos.8274, 8290 and 8291 of 2020.

3. The genesis of this dispute and the writ petitions arises out of an alleged attempt to dig gravel from what the petitioners claim as their land. a learned single Judge of this Court vide orders dated 28.05.2020 directed the respondent-State to conduct an enquiry into the landless poor status etc., of the petitioners and restrained the State from digging the gravel till then. The contention of the petitioners is that the same was not done. Hence, the three writ petitions referred to above followed by WP.No.13252 of 2020.

4. Sri Ramana allu argued at length. He points out that in the order dated 28.05.2020 a direction was given directing respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry with regard to the petitioners being landless poor and to take appropriate action after such enquiry. The Court also directed that till the said enquiry is completed, no excavation can go on in the disputed land. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order, a show cause notice was issued to which a reply was given. as per the averments in the three writ petitions referred to above, the enquiry was not completed. The contention of the petitioners is that despite the clear and categorical order passed by this Court, the respondents have not completed the enquiry into the status of the petitioners as the landless poor and their eligibility to remain in possession of the land and to claim certain rights thereon. He submits that the respondent-State has no respect for the law and that the order dated 28.05.2020 was passed based upon the written instructions and in the presence of Government Pleader only. Therefore, he submits that until the enquiry is completed, the excavation of gravel in the site of the petitioners should not be allowed to go on. He therefore prays for a positive order in WP.No.13252 of 2020 and also in the other three writ petitions.

5. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader argues at length on the basis of his counter filed on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners have purchased the land from the original assignees. Thereafter, notices in Form-1, 2 and 3 were issued to the assignees and the purchasers. after considering this fact, the final order was passed on 09.06.2020 vide reference No.B/559/2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioners and possession of the lands were also taken over physically on 10.06.2010 in the presence of the witnesses. Learned Government Pleader submits that this fact is suppressed in the writ petition. He relies upon the additional documents which he has filed along with a memo which include the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Mandapet dated 09.06.2010 (B559/2010) which is