IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11496 of 2008 Between: V.V.R.K. Reddymma Naidu S/o. Appalanarasaiah R/o. Nagulapalem Village, Muagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Tahsildar, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice in R.C.No.106/2008A dt. -4-2008 for removal of the constructions is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently set-a-side the notice in R.C.No.106/2008A dt. -4-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent herein. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.V.S.MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} O R D E R: The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Ac.00.72 cents of land in S.No.27/3 situated in Nagulapalli village, Munagapaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District from one Bhimisetty Venkata Satyanarana. The Tahsildar, 2nd respondent herein, issued a notice in April 2008 stating that the petitioner had encroached over an extent of Ac.00.1½ cents of land in S.No.27/4 which belongs to the Government and that the construction made by him thereon would be removed. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation on 3.5.2008. His grievance is that in spite of submission of his explanation, the respondents are trying to dispossess him from the land in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner had submitted an explanation. Though no provision is referred to in the notice, the petitioner had stated that he purchased the land and obtained permission of the Gram Panchayat to make construction. Unless and until the 2nd respondent passed a final order on the basis of the explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice, no steps detrimental to the interest of the petitioner can be taken. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents herein shall not dispossess the petitioner from the land mentioned in the notice issued in April, 2008 without passing any final orders, taking into account, the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 3.5.2008. ______________ bcj 29.05.2008