IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14767 of 2008 Between: M.V.Subba Rao S/o.M.Aswardhanarayana Ramalayam Street, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. rep. by its District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 Tahsildar, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.BRAMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare urgent notice bearing No. R.C (A)/96/2008 dated 02-03-2008 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to cancel D-form patta dated 14-10-2002 issued in his favour in respect of Acs.2.50 cents in Survey No.915/A1 of Kanigiri Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. Heard Sri M.Bramha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for the respondents. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Acs.2.50 cents on 14-10-2002 under a D-form patta. On 02-03-2008, a notice was issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner with the allegation that he failed to comply with condition No.2 of the patta by not bringing the land under cultivation within three years from the date of patta, and by keeping the land vacant. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why the possession of the land should not be recovered from him. The petitioner claims that in response to the said notice on 27-03-2008 he sent his explanation. His grievance is that respondent No.2, without passing any order on the said explanation, is seeking to dispossess him out of extraneous considerations. When respondent No.2 had exercised his statutory power by issuing a notice to the petitioner, it is incumbent upon him to pass an appropriate order after considering the explanation said to have been submitted by the petitioner. Until such time as he passes such an order, he is not entitled to interfere with the possession of the petitioner or dispossess him from the property in question. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 is directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question without passing an appropriate order. It is made clear that if an order has already been passed and not communicated, respondent No.2 shall communicate the same to the petitioner. Till communication of the order and also for a period of two weeks from the date of such communication, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.19085 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 10th July, 2008 vrn