JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their respective shops in Sy.No.945 of Peapully Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Heard Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. The petitioners have been running their petty businesses by raising wooden bunks in Sy.No.945 of Peapully Village facing the NH-7 highway in Bangalore – Kurnool sector. Their grievance is that without any notice, respondent No.3 is seeking to evict them. The counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.1 and 3 reveal that some of the petitioners located their bunks on the land belonging to the National Highway Authority and some others on the land belonging to respondent No.3 Grampanchayat. Respondent No.3 specifically pleaded that in respect of the land occupied by some of the petitioners in Sy.No.945, a scheme for construction of shopping complex to earn revenue to the Grampanchayat was evolved and technical and administrative sanctions are obtained from the higher authorities. It also further pleaded that it passed unanimous resolution No.22 dated 31.05.2002 to remove the encroachments and to construct building complex. The fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the land belonging to either National Highway Authority of India or the Peapully Grampanchayat is not disputed by the petitioners. But the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them without issuing notice is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the same is liable to be invalidated. I have not felt impressed by this contention. In recent past, the Constitutional Courts in India deviated from the traditional view that non-observance of the principles of natural justice itself is a ground to invalidate the action as held in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545 ) and S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan ( AIR 1981 SC 136 ) and recognized the ‘Prejudice’ and ‘Useless formality’ theories. It is held by a catena of decisions that if on the undisputed facts the order passed or action taken is not illegal and no useful purpose would have been served by serving a prior notice, the action taken or order passed cannot be invalidated. It is held by a catena of decisions that if on the undisputed facts the order passed or action taken is not illegal and no useful purpose would have been served by serving a prior notice, the action taken or order passed cannot be invalidated. (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 237 ), Aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529 ), Karnataka SRTC vs. S.G. Kotturappa (2005) 3 SCC 409 ), Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh (2006) 8 SCC 647 ), P.D. Agarwal vs. State Bank of India (2006) 8 SCC 776 ) and State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 ). In the instant case, since the petitioners have admitted that they are in occupation of the land, which either belongs to the Grampanchayat or National Highway Authority of India without any permission from either of the authorities, the action of the respondents in seeking to evict them is unexceptionable. Even if a notice was given to the petitioners, in the face of their admission that they are in unauthorized occupation of the land, they would not have been in a position to offer any semblance of explanation to justify their continuance on the land. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the proposed action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioners from the land in question. This Court is required to take notice of the fact that in view of the interim order granted by it in the year 2002, the petitioners had the benefit of remaining in possession of the disputed land for more than six years period. This, in my view, is itself sufficient to mitigate the hardship, if any, that would have been caused to the petitioners if they were evicted without notice. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.15176 of 2002 and WVMP.No.2284 are also dismissed.