ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare.

2. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in making attempts to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land admeasuring Ac. 1.22 gts in Survey No. 135/4 AA and Ac. 0.34 gts in Survey No. 135/5 in total admeasuring Ac. 2.16 gts situated at Chunchupally Village, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District (hereinafter referred to as subject land) on the basis of the orders issued by the 1st respondent in LTR case Nos. 117/2007/KGM and 118/2007/KGM, both dated 21.09.2007, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject land having purchased the same from one Bhukya Bojya under a simple Sale-Deed, dated 01.08.2005, for a total consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- and ever since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. The petitioner got the land mutated in his favour and the pahani for the year 2006, 2007 shows that he is pattedar and possessor of the land. The petitioner and his vendor Bhukya Bojya belong to lambada community, which is notified Scheduled Tribe.

While so, on 21.10.2008, the subordinates of the 2nd respondent came to the subject land and informed the petitioner that the 1st respondent had passed the impugned order of eviction and asked him to vacate the land within two weeks from that date or else he would be forcibly evicted from the land. The said impugned order was passed against one Mohammed Khasim, who is in no way concerned with the land and further the petitioner is not party to the eviction proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent and the impugned order was passed for ejectment of the respondent thereunder (Mohammed Khasim) or whomsoever in possession of the land. In fact, by the date of the impugned order, the petitioner was in possession of the land and no notice was given to the petitioner and thereby, the principles of natural justice are violated.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brings to the notice of this Court, and also brings on record through the additional material papers filed into the Court the certificate of death, dated 19.11.2000 of Mohd. Khasim against whom the impugned order of the 1st respondent in LTR Case No. 117/2007/KGM and 118/2007/KGM, dated 21.09.2007 is passed and admittedly a bare perusal of the same indicates that it is passed against a dead person.

5. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit on his behalf and also on behalf of the 2nd respondent as well. Counter affidavit of the 1st respondent clearly evidences the fact of the enquiry being attended to by Bhukya Mohan S/o Bojya and not by the petitioner herein, who is in possession of the subject land as on the date of passing of the order dated 21.09.2007 by the 1st respondent herein. In the said counter affidavit the only contention raised is that the petitioner instead of agitating against the orders passed by the respondent No. 1 before the appropriate forum, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. He admitted that Bokya Bojya, the vendor of the petitioner was owner and possessor of the subject land. The 1st respondent has not denied the fact that on 21.10.2008 his subordinates went to the subject land and informed the petitioner about the impugned order and asked the petitioner to vacate the subject land. The 1st respondent stated that he had no knowledge of the fact that the petitioner had purchased the subject land under a simple sale deed from his vendor, Bhukya Bojya. According to him, Abdul Khader S/o Mohammed Khasim and Bhukya Mohan son of the petitioner’s vendor Bhukya Bojya attended for the enquiry and the said Bhukya Mohan informed that his father had sold the subject land to Mohammed Khasim.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders would show that t