Order Writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the construction and creating hurdles in making constructions by them in the house sites allotted to them in Sy.No.387/A2 of Komorolu Village and Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and direct the respondents not to interfere with the construction of the petitioners. 2. As per the averments in the writ petition affidavit filed by the 1st petitioner, petitioner Nos.1 to 5 claims to be Ex-Servicemen and during 1987 they had applied for house sites through proper channel and they were allotted Ac.0-05 cents each in Sy.No.387/A2 of Komorolu Village vide proceedings dated 20.5.1987 and possession was also delivered. Petitioner Nos.6 and 7 landless poor and unemployed and they had also applied for allotment, accordingly they were also allotted Ac.0-05 cents of land. The said allotment was questioned by the implead petitioners in WPMP No. 27959 of 2004 who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 13 in the writ petition by orders dated 10.6.2008. On the complaints made by the respondent Nos. 4 to 13, the 2nd respondent cancelled the allotment on the grounds that while granting the pattas due process was not followed for conversion of the land etc. The said cancellation orders were carried in the appeal. The Joint Collector confirmed the order of cancellation of pattas. On further revision filed by the petitioners, the Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad by proceedings No. BCW 3/656/97, dated 2.7.1999, regarding the submissions of the petitioners and the respondents that there is a compromise entered into between the parties to the effect that the assignment would be limited to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents in stead of Ac.0-40 cents, directed the M.R.O. to re-examine the matter keeping the eligibility of the revision petitioners therein including the genuine objections if any for assignment. It may be noted that the Commissioner had not disturbed the order of the Collector confirming the cancellation of pattas in favour of the petitioners by the M.R.O. What all the Commissioner had done is to direct the M.R.O. to re-examine the eligibility of the petitioners for grant of pattas and if they are otherwise found eligible to grant pattas in their favour. Petitioners claimed that after the orders of the Commissioner they were in fact granted pattas vide proceedings dated 30.8.2002, M.R.O. in the approved layout over an extent of Ac.0-02½ cents each in Sy.No.387/A/2A. It is the case of the petitioners that they had taken possession of their respective plots in terms of the allotment made and also constructed their residential houses/thatched huts and residing under the same. While so, the petitioners received notice dated 25.9.2003 directing them to stop construction. Though initially it was contended that notice was issued only to petitioner No. 7, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that similar notices were issued to all the petitioners. As a matter of fact, this was categorically stated by the M.R.O. in the counter, which was not denied by the petitioners by filing a reply affidavit. The implead petitioners in their implead petition had objected that they are not being made parties in the writ petition and would object for setting aside the impugned notice. Their contention is to the effect that the very grant of house site pattas was in contravention of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 696, dated 24.6.1985 as modified by G.O.Ms. No. 911, dated 1.8.1985. The purport of the G.O. is to the effect that there is a general ban imposed on alienation of Government vacant lands and the ban covers the lands in the Cities, Districts, Taluq Headquarters and Municipal towns and major panchayats. Ban also covers grant of house sites and for other needs of weaker sections of the society including Harijans, Girjans, Backward Classes and Economically Backward Classes. Initially the ban was restricted to the land falling within 5 Kms from the periphery of Headquarters of every Mandal. The said distance was reduced to 2 Kms. The learned Counsel for the implead petitioners submitted that the land allotted to them cannot be given to the others as they belong to the weaker sections of the society i.e. Muslims. 3. The said distance was reduced to 2 Kms. The learned Counsel for the implead petitioners submitted that the land allotted to them cannot be given to the others as they belong to the weaker sections of the society i.e. Muslims. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would bring to the notice of the Court that the Proceedings in Rc.B/1602/03, dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapuram wherein it has been categorically recorded, that there was no subsequent action initiated pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner in the matter and in fact a direction was issued to the Mandal Revenue Officer to implement the orders of the CCLA. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Tahasildar, sworn on 12.9.2007 detailing various proceedings which have been taken from time to time. Even in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that vide proceedings dated 17.12.2003, the MRO had said that the papers filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent would reveal the haphazard manner in which the cases relating to houses are being dealt by the officers concerned. 5. A bare perusal of the claims of the petitioners belonging to one family claiming themselves to be serving Jawans in the military and their claim of being allotted house site pattas on their application through proper channel and the manner in which it has been considered leaves much to be said. Considering the veracity of the claims made by the petitioners one only needs to see the petitioner No. 5 at the time when the writ petition has been filed he is claimed to be aged about 38 years. His claim is that they were granted pattas on 20.5.1987. If the same has to be taken to be true, in the year 1987 the petitioner No. 5 would be aged about 17 years, assuming that the petitioner No. 5 was admitted into army service at the age of 16 years, one does not understand under what scheme and who had processed the application and who had recommended him, to enter into to army service by then. It is not deserving under what scheme and considering what eligibility criteria the petitioner No. 5 was granted house site patta of Ac.0-05 cents in 1987. It is not deserving under what scheme and considering what eligibility criteria the petitioner No. 5 was granted house site patta of Ac.0-05 cents in 1987. There is definitely a Government policy for granting house site patta/land over a small extent of land for Ex-servicemen, who had served and retired and demitted office in terms of the Government of India policies. It is not known whether there is any scheme evolved/formulated by the Government of India/State Government, to make available lands/house site pattas in favour of the serving members of armed forces. Considering from that angle and considering the case of petitioner No. 5 as a test case, the entire claim of the petitioners with respect to they being granted house site pattas in 1987 and thereafter the litigation which they had carried on, requires to be thoroughly examined and investigated into. This becomes relevant for the reason that if there is no scheme even formulated or available in favour of the serving armed people and if allotment of this nature is made at the field level without examining the eligibility or otherwise, before long there would be innumerable applications from every soldier on his entry into service. If the same scheme is to be adopted for the people who are also working in the State level security, law and order, administration, the position and the consequences can well be imagined. In that view of the matter, the District Collector is directed to thoroughly investigate into the whole issue with regard to grant of pattas in favour of the petitioners. If they are otherwise genuinely allotted they need to be protected, in accordance with the law. 6. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it is the specific assertion of the petitioners in the writ affidavit that they were allotted the land and they are in possession and occupation of the land. This specific averment is not denied in the counter-affidavits filed by the Tahasildhar. In fact the affidavit would support the case of the petitioners about their possession and occupation. In view of the settled principle of law that even eviction of an encroacher with no semblance of legal right can only be done by following due process of law, the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them would be arbitrary and unsustainable. In view of the settled principle of law that even eviction of an encroacher with no semblance of legal right can only be done by following due process of law, the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess them would be arbitrary and unsustainable. For that reason, the impugned orders are set aside giving liberty to the respondent officials to take• appropriate action in accordance with law by following due process. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petition pending, if any, shall stand closed.