- (1.) Heard Sri E. Kalyan Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. Subash Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5.
(2.) The petitioners have questioned the action of the Respondent - Mandal Revenue Officer and the District Collector in B-5128/90 as illegal and arbitrary. Sri R. Subash Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents has raised serious objections to the very maintainability of the above writ petition with respect to the relief as prayed for. According to learned Counsel for the respondents, Sri R. Subash Reddy, no details or particulars have been furnished by the petitioners as to the proceedings questioned by them in the above writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the proceedings in question are one relating to a notice in File B1/5128/90 dated 11-1-1993 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer - Respondent No.2 for evicting respondents 6 to 9 from their dwelling house.
(3.) It is thus apparent that what the petitioners have questioned in the above writ petition is a notice calling upon the respondents 6 to 8 as to why they should not be evicted from the dwelling house under Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy Act.;