ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ or direction more particularly a Writ in a nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceeding vide R C No 642/2025A dated 0109 2025 is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside and consequently restraining the Respondents 1 to 4 from interfering with the actual physical possession of Petitioners as arbitrary illegal violates Principles of Natural Justice Article 14 21and 300A of the Constitution and the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents to consider allotment of the extent of land in their respective possession in S No 101/1 of Annavaram Village Bheemunipatnam Mandal Visakhapatnam over their respective extents of the lands in S No 101/1 of Annavaram Village Bheemunipatnam Mandal Visakhapatnam to pass such other order or orders...” 1.1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General for the respondents. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that they are in possession of the subject land in Sy. No.101/1 measuring a total extent of Ac.199.28 cents situated in Annavaram Village, which stands classified as AWD (Assessed Waste Dry Land) in the revenue records. Out of the said extent, Ac.14.00 cents is a compact block suitable for development under the CLDP Scheme (Cluster Leadership Development Program). The 28 petitioners are persons living below the poverty line, and their cases were recommended by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bheemunipatnam to the Project Director, DWMA (District Water Management Agency) vide R.C. No.559/2006 C, dated 20.12.2006, stating that all the beneficiaries of Pyla Petta H/o Annavaram Village had encroached upon Government land in Sy. No.101/1 of Annavaram Village. Further reliance is placed on the communication dated 06.10.2010 of the Station House Officer, Bheemunipatnam, pursuant to which the Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam submitted a report vide R.C. No.559/2006/A dated 19.01.2011. Apart from the above, in the year 2023 the petitioners filed O.S. No.328 of 2023 before the Court of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against certain third parties, wherein an order of injunction was also granted. The petitioners also relied on photographs showing their occupation of the subject land. It is contended that without conducting a proper enquiry, the respondent authorities passed the impugned orders dated 09.09.2025. The petitioners also relied on photographs showing their occupation of the subject land. It is contended that without conducting a proper enquiry, the respondent authorities passed the impugned orders dated 09.09.2025. The petitioners further contend that the contents of the order of respondent No.4 are not known to them and no specific objections were mentioned therein. 3. The petitioners submit that admittedly they have been in possession for a long time and rely upon Report No.226/2006, dated 11.06.2006 as well as the injunction granted in O.S. No.328 of 2023 by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. In the said circumstances, the petitioners have requested grant of pattas considering their long possession over the subject property. Without considering the same, the respondents ought not to have passed the impugned orders or attempted to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. 4. Considering their possession, the names of the petitioners were also recorded earlier. In reply to the said contentions, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents, made submissions based on the facts recorded in the impugned order, stating that the authorities considered the entire issue in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.15768 of 2025, dated 27.06.2025. Accordingly, an enquiry was undertaken, notices were issued to the petitioners on 07.07.2025, and replies were submitted by them on 14.07.2025. 5. An enquiry was conducted and findings were recorded after verification of the Webland history for the survey number in question from 19.03.2012 to 03.10.2018, the manual adangals available for Fasalis 1406, 1419 and 1421 (1996, 2009 and 2011), the computerized adangals for Fasalis 1422 and 1424 (2012 and 2014), and the available Webland adangals up to Fasali 1435. It was found that the names of the petitioners do not figure therein as encroachers. Further verification of the annual village account No.4(c), which contains details of encroachments of Government lands, also revealed that the petitioners were not recorded therein, and no B-Memo charges were levied against them, which are normally imposed on encroachers of Government lands. It was also reported by various departments that the said lands are not fit for cultivation. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry was not conducted by giving proper opportunity to the petitioners and that they were not permitted to produce relevant evidence to substantiate their claim. 6. It was also reported by various departments that the said lands are not fit for cultivation. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry was not conducted by giving proper opportunity to the petitioners and that they were not permitted to produce relevant evidence to substantiate their claim. 6. Considering the circumstances and the contention of the learned Advocate General, is that since long time the subject land are in favour of the concerned department, it is evident that the petitioners are presently not in possession. 7. While considering the entire issue, the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court certain recent developments, namely that the respondents/State are considering the request of the petitioners for grant of alternative land and negotiations are in progress. Though the learned Advocate General, has not disputed the same and submitted that, so far as possession is concerned, the property has already been transferred to the Tourism Department, which in turn has handed it over to third-party beneficiaries for development. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to continue the interim orders relating to possession, as the land has already been handed over to third parties for development. However, directions are issued to the respondents, particularly the District Collector, to consider the request made by the petitioners for grant of alternative land, expeditiously. 8. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.