V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE land admeasuring ac. 23. 21 cents in Survey Nos. 7/lb-l, 7/3a and 149 of Arempudi Village in Sankavaram mandal, East Godavari District is the subject- matter of dispute in these two writ petitions. It is therefore expedient to dispose of both the writ petitions by a common order. ( 2 ) THE writ petition being W. P. No. 23809 of 2002 is filed by Ms. Veeraswamy, m. Bhaktavatsalam, M. Suryaprakasa Rao who are sons of one late Neelaiah and m. Srinivas, S/o late Satyanarayana of arempudi Armavaram Village and post. Sankavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. They sought a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, sankavaram in interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 23. 21 cents comprised in Survey Nos. 7/lb-l, 7/3a ; and Survey No. 8 of the said village. They also seek a consequential direction to the respondent not to interfere with the agricultural activities carried on by them in the said land. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the land in question originally belonged to Kanchumarthi parthsarathi, Kanchumarthi Kesavarao and kanchumarthi Venkata Subba Rao residents of Rajahmundry since long. After the three brothers died, they allege that Smt. Venkata ramanamma W/o Kanchumarthi Venkata subba Rao became the landlord in her lifetime. These lands were allegedly leased out to the 4th petitioner and they became permanent tenants under the provisions of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 ( the Tenancy Act for brevity ). They also allege that they developed the land by installing pump set in the year 1975 and are raising the paddy and other dry crops by drawing water from the well. They further allege that when third parties tried to interfere with their possession, Smt. Talupulamma w/o late Neelaiah and four others filed a suit being O. S. No. 50 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Prattipadu, east Godavari District for permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed on 1. 7. 1988. While the matters stood thus, the mandal Revenue Officer, Sankavaram mandal orally requested them in November, 2002 not to enter the above lands and therefore they filed the writ petition. 7. 1988. While the matters stood thus, the mandal Revenue Officer, Sankavaram mandal orally requested them in November, 2002 not to enter the above lands and therefore they filed the writ petition. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit is filed in W. P. No. 23089 of 2002 to the effect that by reason of the notification issued under section 11 (1) of the A. P. Andhra Pradesh escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974, ( the act for brevity), the land in question was treated as Bona Vacantia land. Therefore, the petitioners viz. , M. Veeraswamy, m. Bhakthavatsalam and M. Surya Prakasa rao who are sons of late Neelaiah and one M Srinivas S/o M. Surya Prakasa Rao filed W. P. No. 149 of 2003 in effect challenging the gazette notification dated 31. 7. 1998 issued under Section II (i) of the Act. They also seek a declaration that the action of the respondents (Revenue Officials including the Mandal Revenue Officer, Sankavaram) in seeking to evict them as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India. ( 5 ) IN both the writ petitions counters have been filed. As a comprehensive counter is filed in W. P. No. 149 of 2003, it is only necessary to refer to the said counter- affidavit. In brief, the case of the respondents- revenue Officials is that after the death of kanchumarthi Parthasaradhi without legal heirs the possession of the lands was taken over and handed over to the Village administrative Officer, Madana Veeraswamy of Armavaram by the Mandal Revenue officer on 13. 6. 1998 for safe custody. It is also stated that the Mandal Revenue officer conducted an enquiry before taking possession and as there was no resistance offered by anybody, possession was taken and land was entrusted to the Village administrative Officer, the 1st petitioner. A report was also sent to the District Collector, east Godavari District on 13. 6. 2000 enclosing Form 1 notice and the mediators report. It is further stated that at the time of taking possession of the land by the Mandal revenue Officer, neighbours and the Village administrative Officer who is the paternal uncle of the petitioner in W. P. No. 149 of 2003 was also present and nobody objected for the said action. 6. 2000 enclosing Form 1 notice and the mediators report. It is further stated that at the time of taking possession of the land by the Mandal revenue Officer, neighbours and the Village administrative Officer who is the paternal uncle of the petitioner in W. P. No. 149 of 2003 was also present and nobody objected for the said action. It is further stated that when Casuarinas thope was cut by one Telagamsetti Trinadha Rao and two others of U. Kothapalli (M), and two others, M. Veeraswamy and the Assistant panchayat Secretary sent a police complaint for taking necessary action. Even at that time, the other petitioners did not raise any objection. It is asserted that the land is bona vacantia land, which has been taken over under the provisions of the act and the petitioners have no manner of right. ( 6 ) SRI V. Narayan Reddy and Smt. D. S. Lakshmi, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that during the lifetime of neelaiah, Satyanarayana Rao and Surya prakash Rao, the father of the 4th petitioner were inducted as tenants and therefore they are entitled to protection under the tenancy Act and that the land is not bona vacantia land. Secondly, they would contend that even if it is bona vacantia land, as the petitioners are in possession of the landed property, the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act has to be followed. These contentions are refuted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue sri P. Rajagopal Rao who has made submissions similar to the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit. ( 7 ) THE only point that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have any right that can be enforced in these proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution of India. ( 8 ) ABUNDANT and unimpeachable evidence by way of notifications, reports to the District Collector, previous reports have been placed before this Court in support of the contention that after the death of parthasarathi, the property was declared to be an escheat or bona vacantia property under Section 11 of the Act. In neither of the writ petitions though counter-affidavits were served long back, no reply affidavit was filed denying the same. Indeed through the notification issued on 31. 7. In neither of the writ petitions though counter-affidavits were served long back, no reply affidavit was filed denying the same. Indeed through the notification issued on 31. 7. 1998 under Section 11 of the Act is challenged in w. P. No. 149 of 2003, either in the affidavit or across the bar no legal ground is urged nor substantiated. . Be that as it is, after perusing the entire material placed before this Court, this Court is convinced that the authorities have followed the procedure contemplated under Section 11 of the Act before declaring the property in question which originally belonged to Pardhasarathi as escheat or bona vacantia property. ( 9 ) AN interesting incidental question would also arise having regard to the allegation made by Sri B. Narayan Reddy that Veeraswamy, Bhakthavatsalam, suryaprakasa Rao and Srinivas being the legal heirs of late Neelaiah and satyanarayana are tenants and therefore the property cannot be declared as bona vacantia property. The provisions of the tenancy Act would only confer certain benefits on the tenants. They do not confer any title or ownership on the tenants though a tenant cannot be evicted unless the landlord approaches the Special Officer/ special Tribunal and proves the grounds of default, wastage etc. Even in a hypothetical case where in respect of a property there are no legal heirs and the same is in possession of the tenants, still under the provisions of the 1974 Act, the property can be declared as escheat or bona vacantia land. The alleged statutory rights of statutory tenants are not a bar at all for taking steps under section 11 of the Act for declaring the property as escheat or bona vacantia. A tenant in law continues to be a tenant and merely because the landlord dies without leaving heirs, his right would not assume the character of absolute ownership. It is also possible to treat such tenants as tenants of the Government when once the property is declared as escheat or bona vacantia. However, I may hasten to add that in this case, the petitioners have failed to prove that they are tenants except making bald allegation. Indeed though the writ petition is filed by the same petitioners there is inconsistency in the affidavit filed in one writ petition with that of the affidavit filed in other writ petition. However, I may hasten to add that in this case, the petitioners have failed to prove that they are tenants except making bald allegation. Indeed though the writ petition is filed by the same petitioners there is inconsistency in the affidavit filed in one writ petition with that of the affidavit filed in other writ petition. ( 10 ) AFTER taking possession of the property under Section 9 of the Act, the property was entrusted to M. Veeraswamy, the 1st petitioner for safe custody. The fact that Veeraswamy and others were present at the time of delivering possession and at the time of giving complaint against trinadha Rao is not denied. Therefore, the petitioners must be held to have acquiesced the factum that the property is escheat or bona vacantia. ( 11 ) IT is the submission of Sri V. Narayana Reddy that as the petitioners were in possession of the property, the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act ought to have been followed. I am afraid, I cannot agree with this submission. No evidence is placed before this Court except the affidavit evidence that the petitioners are in possession of the property. The mediators report at the time of taking possession on 13. 6. 1998 would show that there was no resistance from any quarter and therefore the possession was taken without any objection from anybody. Here reference may be made to Section 8 of the act which reads as under: 8. Local Officer to institute a suit for recovery of possession of escheat or bona vacantia when the person in possession resists: where as a result of the inquiry under section 7, the local officer is satisfied that the property of the nature of an escheat or a bona vacantia in the possession of a person who has no authority to claim it and if such person resists to surrender such possession on demand the officer may after obtaining the sanction of competent authority institute a suit in Court for declaration of the Government s right to the property and for recovery of possession of such property. 2. Where the Court has declared that the property is an escheat or a bona vacantia, the local officer shall obtain the possession thereof through the Court and manage it or dispose it of in such manner as may be prescribed. 2. Where the Court has declared that the property is an escheat or a bona vacantia, the local officer shall obtain the possession thereof through the Court and manage it or dispose it of in such manner as may be prescribed. ( 12 ) A plain reading of Section 8 (1) and (2) would show that if a local officer is satisfied that the property is of the nature of an escheat or bona vacantia, such local authority may take possession and if there is any resistance from anybody to surrender such possession, then he may institute a suit in a Court for declaration of the Government s right to property and for recovery of possession of the property. When the petitioners in W. P. No. 149 of 2003 contend that without any notice proceedings were initiated under the Act, they cannot be heard to say that they resisted the action of the Mandal Revenue officer while taking possession. Indeed, there was no such resistance and therefore it is not necessary for the Government to institute a suit as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in g. Narasimha Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1987 (2) ALT 46 (NRC ). In the said judgment, it appears that when the Revenue Officials went to take possession of the property and to declare as escheat or bona vacantia, there was resistance from the person in possession and therefore this Court observed that when there is such resistance the government has to institute a suit for recovery of possession and the procedure of serving notices of taking possession is not contemplated. The facts on hand are altogether different. The property was declared ps escheat or bona vacantia and the possession was taken on 13-6-1998 without any objection or resistance from any body However, the property was handed over to Veeraswamy and he did not deny it specifically by filing a special affidavit. The necessary communications and reports signed by Veeraswamy are also placed before this Court which would belie all the contentions of the petitioners. ( 13 ) THE writ petitions for the above reasons, should fail and they are accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- in each case.