THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18485 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the public notice bearing LCC.No.968/75, dated 18.05.2010 issued by the second respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam. The father of respondents 4 and 5 was the declarant under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short ‘the Act’). On such declaration, it was found that he was holding the land in excess of the ceiling limits. To surrender the excess land, the legal heirs of the original declarant i.e. respondents 4 and 5 have filed surrender statement under Section 10(2) of the Act. In view of the said statement, the impugned notice was issued inviting objections from the public for the proposed surrender. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the land admeasuring Acs.8.16 cents covered by Survey No.10/2 from the original declarant pursuant to an agreement of sale, dated 05.01.1962 and since then, he is in continuous uninterrupted possession. It is stated that his name is entered in the revenue records in the occupation column. It is also stated that on the ground that the sale deed was not executed, he filed O.S.No.14 of 2006 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili, for specific performance of the agreement of sale, and the same is pending. Even according to the petitioner, he has already filed objections pursuant to the impugned public notice. Apprehending eviction, he has filed this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned public notice itself indicates that the objections were invited with regard to the lands mentioned therein on the surrender statement filed by the original declarant. If the petitioner has purchased the land in question by way of agreement of sale and is in continuous uninterrupted possession of the same, the objections filed by him will be enquired into, as such, there is no basis for his apprehension, before his objections are considered by the second respondent. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to direct the second respondent to consider the objections stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 16.06.2010 pursuant to the impugned public notice. Unless such objections are overruled, the petitioner shall not be evicted form the land in question, if he is in possession of it. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd AUGUST, 2010. kvni