THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25363 of 2010 Dated 08th October, 2010 Between: V. Ashok Kumar and others …Petitioners And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, senior counsel, for Sri C. Sumon Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the notice dated 10.09.2010 issued by respondent No.2 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and without jurisdiction. I have heard Sri C.V Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The impugned show cause notice is issued by respondent No.2 on the premise that the petitioners are in occupation of patta lands, but constructed buildings covering FTL area and Nala pertaining to Eerla Cheruvu in survey No.26 of Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners have submitted their respective explanations to the said notice, but however filed the present writ petition on the ground that the report dated 11.05.2010 submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 which was prepared after the joint inspection by both the said respondents clearly shows that the petitioners’ houses are situated outside the FTL area and within their patta lands in survey No.23(P) of the said Village. In my opinion, the issue whether the petitioners are in occupation of survey No.26 or survey No.23(P) requires to be adjudicated by respondent No.2 on the basis of the material available before him. The petitioners having already submitted their respective explanations cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court at this juncture. The learned senior counsel, however, expressed his apprehension that respondent No.2, being a party to the joint inspection along with respondent No.3, has issued the show cause notice for extraneous reasons and that he may be likely ignore the report submitted by respondent No.3 while deciding the dispute. In my opinion, respondent No.2 cannot overlook the contents of the report submitted by respondent No.3. He is bound to consider the said report and assign detailed reasons, if he seeks to differ with the opinion of respondent No.3. The petitioners are entitled to participate in the enquiry to be held by respondent No.2 and put- forth their objections which shall be considered by respondent No.2 in detail before passing appropriate orders under Section 6 of the Act. To ensure that the petitioners’ properties will not be taken over in the event of an adverse order that may be passed against them, such an order, if any, passed by respondent No.2 shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of service of orders on the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.32402 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th October, 2010 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow. (B/o) GHN