Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside the notices issued under Sections 7 and 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “the 1905 Act”) and the purported resumption of the land vide proceedings in R.Dis.No.253/90, dated 18-2-1990 under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “Act 9/1977”). The petitioners sought for a further direction to pay market value for Ac.1-44 cents out of Ac.3-81 cents acquired for Handari Neeva Sujala Sravanthi. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that one Peravali Subbanna sold an extent of Ac.3-81 cents comprised in Sy.No.1056-2 of Basinikonda Revenue village, Madanapalle Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District, on 2-8-1992 to Pedda Narayanappa who sold the same to M. Lakshmidevamma on 9-4-1981; that M. Lakshmidevamma in turn sold the said land to four persons by names S. Masthan, N. Masthan, M. Eswaramma and S. Akkulamma on 27-2-1989; that M. Eswaramma and S. Akkulamma sold their shares of the land to S. Mastan and N. Mastan on 8-12-1989; and that the names of S. Mastan and N. Mastan were mutated in the revenue records and they were also granted pattadar passbook and title deeds. The petitioners have purchased the said land under registered sale deed dated 4-6-1990 and they have erected a shed therein for granite factory and constructed compound walls. On 27-10-1990, respondent No.2 issued show-cause-notice to the petitioners under Section 7 of the 1905 Act, questioning which the petitioners filed W.P.No.15550/1990. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 9-11-1990 permitting the petitioners to participate in the enquiry. The petitioners filed objections to the show cause notice and respondent No.2 vide his order dated 4-11-1990 ordered eviction of the petitioners under Section 6 of the Act. Apprehending dispossession, the petitioners filed O.S.No.332/1990 on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madanapalle for permanent injunction and secured an order of interim injunction. In the written statement filed in the said suit, the respondents have pleaded that the subject land was assigned to Peravali Subbanna on 23-12-1957 with the condition that the same shall not be alienated; that as the assignee has violated the said condition, the assignment was cancelled by respondent No.2 vide his proceedings in R.Dis.No.253/1990, dated 18-2-1990 and that the possession of the land was resumed declaring the land as “Anaadheenam Dry”. It was also stated that simultaneously, eviction proceedings under the 1905 Act were initiated and eviction order under Section 6 thereof was passed. After a full fledged trial, the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madanapalle dismissed the suit by Judgment and decree dated 20-9-1996 by holding that in view of the passing of resumption order under the provisions of Act 9/1977, the petitioners ought to have availed their remedies before the Revenue hierarchy and that the petitioners availed a wrong remedy by filing the suit. On appeal, in A.S.No.94/2000, the learned VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, confirmed the said finding. Against the said Judgment and decree, the petitioners filed a Second Appeal i.e. S.A.No.1033/2005, which is stated to be pending in this Court. At the hearing, Sri R. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the stand taken by the respondents is mutually contradictory, in that, on one hand they have pleaded before the lower Court that the resumption order was passed under Act 9/1977 on 18-2-1990 and on the other hand they have stated that an order was passed under Section 6 of the 1905 Act on 4-11-1990. He has submitted that if the resumption order was passed on 18-2-1990, there was no reason for initiating the proceedings under the 1905 Act for recovery of possession of the subject land. The learned Counsel further submitted that the entire proceedings purported to have been initiated by the respondents under Act 9/1977 are non-existent as no record is available to show that such a resumption order has been passed. The learned Counsel has also contended that the order passed under Section 6 of the 1905 Act is also patently illegal and inasmuch as there is a bonafide dispute relating to title, the summary proceedings under Section 6 of the 1905 Act could not have been initiated as held by the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Krishna Rao ( AIR 1982 S.C. 1081 ). T. Krishna Rao ( AIR 1982 S.C. 1081 ). The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area) submitted that the Writ Petition suffers from heavy laches as the cause of action had arisen for questioning the resumption order passed under Act 9/1977 as well as the order passed under the 1905 Act as far back as the year 1990 and that except the pleading that the petitioners were pursuing the civil remedies, they have not assigned any reason whatsoever for questioning the said orders. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. With regard to the resumption proceedings, the record in support thereof is not available. However, a copy of the extract of A-Register produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, contains an endorsement showing that the patta was cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalle, vide R.Dis.No.253/90, dated 18-2-1990. In fact, this plea was raised in the written statement filed by the respondents in the civil suit which was accepted by the trial Court. Had the petitioners been diligent in pursuing their remedies properly, they should have filed an appeal under the provisions of Act 9/1977 immediately after filing of the written statement in the civil suit in the year 1990. Having suffered a Judgment from the trial Court and as well as the appellate Court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to approach this Court at their leisure on the pretext that they were pursuing civil remedies. It is not possible for this Court to invalidate the resumption order 23 years after the said order was purported to have been passed, on the ground of absence of record. Similarly, with regard to the proceedings under the 1905 Act, as noted hereinbefore, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.15550/1990 questioning the notice issued under Section 7 of the said Act and the petitioners were relegated to the enquiry before respondent No.2 by this Court. An order under Section 6 of the 1905 Act was accordingly passed on 4-11-1990 by respondent No.2. It is incomprehensible as to why the petitioners have not availed the further remedies under the 1905 Act, or at least invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Instead, they embarked upon filing a civil suit. Thus, the failure of the petitioners to question both the resumption order as well as the eviction order for more than two decades is of their own making. Instead, they embarked upon filing a civil suit. Thus, the failure of the petitioners to question both the resumption order as well as the eviction order for more than two decades is of their own making. The law is well settled that the Constitutional Courts will not entertain Writ Petitions filed with unexplained laches irrespective of the merits of the case (See: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai ( AIR 1964 SC 1006 )and Tilokchand Motichand vs. H.B. Munshi ( AIR 1970 SC 898 )). In the light of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition in order to examine the validity of the resumption order as well as the eviction order passed by the respondents at this belated stage. As the Writ Petition suffers from uncondonable laches, the same is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the pending Second Appeal. It is made clear that the observations made and the findings rendered in this order shall not prejudice the interests of the petitioners in the pending Second Appeal. As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.38257/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.