Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that respondent Nos.2 and 4 have not been evicting respondent No.5 and delivering physical possession of the house site, admeasuring Ac.0.04 cents or 192 square yards situated in Plot No.5 in R.S.No.174/2 of Ramanakkapeta Village, Musunuru Mandal, Krishna District (for short ‘the subject land’) to the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded that his father was assigned the subject land on 05.08.1976 by respondent No.2; that his father has constructed a thatched house in the said site; that respondent No.5 had trespassed into the said house in the middle of May 2012 and obtained possession certificate on 13.06.2012 from respondent No.2; that on the petitioner approaching respondent No.2, the latter has cancelled possession certificate given to respondent No.2, vide his proceedings in Rc.No.A.3/2013, dated 08.02.2013; and that as physical possession of the said land was not restored to the petitioner, respondent No.2 has addressed letter, dated 26.06.2013, to respondent No.4 for restoring physical possession of the plot to the petitioner. As no action has been taken by respondent No.4 on the said letter of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. I have heard Sri N.Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. From the admitted facts of the case, it is evident that respondent No.5 has trespassed into the petitioner’s plot and obtained possession certificate later. The cancellation of possession certificate of respondent No.5 would give a right to the petitioner for the former’s eviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no provision of law under which respondent No.2 can ask respondent No.4 to evict respondent No.5 from the subject land. The power to order eviction of an encroacher from the land claimed by a private person lies only with the civil Court. In the absence of any statutory provision which enables respondent Nos.2 and 4 to evict an unauthorised occupant of an assigned land, during the subsistence of the assignment, the very letter addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4 is beyond his jurisdiction. Thus, no Mandamus can be issued to enforce such a letter. The only remedy available to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is to approach the competent civil Court and seek eviction of respondent No.5 from the subject land. Thus, no Mandamus can be issued to enforce such a letter. The only remedy available to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is to approach the competent civil Court and seek eviction of respondent No.5 from the subject land. Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.45679 and 45680 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous.