THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No. 17836 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been preferred challenging the validity of the orders passed by the District Collector and Magistrate, Khammam, in his proceedings Rc No. G/1223/2009, dated 13.6.2011. In view of the order that I propose to pass, the long history of the case can be cut short. The essential facts to be noted are these: Land belonging to the petitioner appears to have been acquired for a public purpose viz., construction of an irrigation canal. The Land Acquisition Officer has finalized the proceedings and determined the compensation payable to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.2,69,093/-. But, however, the petitioner has not withdrawn the said amount of compensation. Instead, he requested for allotment of equivalent alternative government land to an extent of Ac.1.13 gts situated in Sy. No. 39 situated at Siddaram village which was under his possession since long time. Since that request was not considered, WP No. 19290 of 2007 has been instituted in this court and by judgment and order dated 18.3.2009, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider allotment of alternate land of an extent of Ac.1.13 gts situated in Sy. No. 39 and pass appropriate orders thereon. On the ground that the said directions of this court have not been complied with, CC No. 556 of 2010 was also instituted. Therefore, now the Collector and District Magistrate has passed orders. He has recorded a finding that the family of the petitioners possessed land altogether of an extent of Ac.28.09 gts. Further, the land solicited allotment by them was nearer to the road leading towards Siddaram to Marlapadu – Vijayawada road. Therefore, the Collector and District Magistrate did not consider it either necessary or appropriate to allot/assign land of Ac.1.13 gts situated in Sy. No. 39 of Siddaram village, in lieu of the land acquired of Ac.1.21 ½ gts situate in Sy. No. 12/6 and 13/3 of the petitioner. He suggested to the petitioner to receive the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer with up to date interest. The Collector further proceeded to direct to take necessary action in terms of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1977 and evict the petitioner from the land in question and report compliance. It is this later portion of the order, by which the writ petitioner is essentially aggrieved. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Raja Malla Reddy would submit that in view of the direction issued by the Collector, the 2nd and 3rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar would act unilaterally and arbitrarily and evict him from the land in question without following the process of law. I am afraid the apprehensions entertained by the writ petitioner may not be genuine. In fact, following the procedure, the Tahsildar, Sathupalli has put the writ petitioner on notice in Form I dated 1.5.2008. Pursuant to this show- cause notice dated 1.5.2008, the petitioner has filed his detailed explanation on 22.5.2008. Suspecting that he will unilaterally be evicted from the land in question, he moved this court by filing WP No. 11363 of 2008, which writ petition was disposed of by this court on 29.5.2008 granting liberty to the petitioner to put forward all his contentions in response to the show-cause notice dated 1.5.2008 and the Tahsildar, Sathupalli Mandal who was the 1st respondent in the aforementioned writ petition was directed not to evict the petitioner from the land in question or indulge in any demolition of the structures made thereon till such time orders are passed by the said Tahsildar, Sathupalli pursuant to the show cause notice dated 1.5.2008 and further till the period of limitation for preferring the appeal is exhausted. I have therefore no doubt in my mind that the Tahsildar, Sathupalli will take the proceedings initiated by him against the petitioner through his show-cause notice dated 1.5.2008 to the logical conclusion by passing a detailed speaking order, duly considering the objections raised by the petitioner in his explanation dated 22.5.2008 and or any such objections which might be raised by way of supplementary explanation that might be submitted by him within one week from today and based thereon pass an appropriate speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The Tahsildar would abide by the order passed by this court on 29.5.2008 in WP No. 11363 of 2008 by not seeking eviction of the petitioner from the land in question or by undertaking demolition of structure standing thereon till such time the appeal time is exhausted. However, the writ petitioner shall not seek to make any further constructions on the land in question. With this, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J knk 28th June 2011 Note: CC in (2) days (b/o) knk