Judgment : 1. The petitioner filed Case No.9/2007/MGR against the third respondent herein in the Court of the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), Bhadrachalam, first respondent herein, under the provisions of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short ‘the Regulations’), for recovery of three guntas of land in Sy.No.138/1 of Ashoknagar, Bandargudem Village of Manuguru Mandal, Khammam District. The case was allowed on 24.08.2007 directing that the possession of the schedule property be delivered to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that though the Tahsildar, Manuguru, the second respondent, is under obligation to execute the order passed by the first respondent, no action has been taken thereof. She prays for appropriate directions in this regard. 3. Heard Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondents 1 and 2. 4. The case filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession of land from the third respondent was allowed about two years ago. The A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959, and the Rules made thereunder, prescribes special procedure for adjudication of disputes in tribal areas. The Agent to Government or the Agency Divisional Officer discharges the functions of civil Courts. The case filed by the petitioner is almost in the nature of a suit for recovery of possession. By following the prescribed procedure, the first respondent allowed the case and on the strength of the orders passed therein, the petitioner is entitled to recover possession of the property. The petitioner insists that the second respondent must take necessary steps by himself to induct her into possession. It is not even stated that she has filed an application or revision for this purpose. However, reliance is placed upon sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’). 5. Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer while adjudicating the disputes brought before them under the Regulations. However, reliance is placed upon sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’). 5. Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer while adjudicating the disputes brought before them under the Regulations. Sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules indicates the manner in which the order passed for ejectment or eviction is to be executed, which reads as under: - “Where the Agent or the Agency Divisional Officer or the Officer referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 has decided that a person in possession should be ejected under subsection (2) of Section 3 he shall pass a decree and order in Form ‘F’ and such decree and order shall be executed by the officer specified therein in the manner in which any decree of ejectment by a competent Civil Court is executed.” 6. From this, it becomes clear that whenever an order of eviction is passed by the authority concerned, a decree is to be drawn in Form-F and the same shall be executed by the officers specified therein. In the instant case, a decree in Form-F was drawn and the Tahsildar, Manuguru, the second respondent, was named as the officer to take steps for restoration of possession in favour of the petitioner. However, that is not the end of the matter. The petitioner has to take the decree before the second respondent and make a representation or application for executing the same. The provision extracted above mandates that the order shall be executed in the same manner in Cherthala which a decree of a civil Court is executed. During the course of execution, the necessity to verify the third party claims, if any, may arise and spot inspection may become necessary. There may be cases where an altogether different party is in possession and enjoyment of the property, though the adjudication may have taken place between two individuals some times, in collusion with each other. In such an event, the Tahsildar, the second respondent, has to address the issue and resolve the same either by himself or by taking the same to the notice of the authority who passed the order. All this would become possible only when an application is filed for execution. 7. In such an event, the Tahsildar, the second respondent, has to address the issue and resolve the same either by himself or by taking the same to the notice of the authority who passed the order. All this would become possible only when an application is filed for execution. 7. The petitioner cannot expect the Tahsildar, the second respondent, to take all the steps without any application being made by her. The very fact that the steps to be taken by the second respondent were equated to a decree passed by a civil Court discloses that a formal application needs to be filed and notices to the concerned parties, be issued. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make any such application. 8. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit an application before the second respondent with a prayer to execute the decree passed in her favour. As and when such an application is filed, the second respondent shall take necessary steps, in accordance with law, duly issuing notices to the affected parties. There shall be no order as to costs.