THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30759 of 2010 Date: 8.12.2010 Between: B.Ramulamma ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam Counsel for Respondents : A.G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30759 of 2010 Order: The petitioner is in occupation of 43 sq. yards of land in Survey No.389/5 of Yellamanchili Village, which, admittedly belongs to the Government. Respondent No.3 is stated to have issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act,1905 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by an order of eviction under Section 6 of the Act in the year 2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who set aside the said order and remanded the same to respondent No.3. However, after a long gap of time, respondent No.3 issued a fresh notice under Section 7 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why she shall not be evicted. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 11.7.2010 to the said notice. While no order has been passed by respondent No.3 so far, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by raising several contentions on merits. In my opinion, when the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 have been pending and the petitioner has already submitted her explanation, it is not permissible for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at this stage, as no order adverse to the petitioner’s interest has been passed so far. As the petitioner has already submitted her explanation, it is incumbent upon respondent No.3 to carefully consider the same and pass appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such an order, she shall be free to avail further legal remedies available to her under the Act. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference of this Court at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the possession of petitioner shall not be disturbed by the respondents unless a final order of eviction is passed by respondent No.3. As a sequel to disposal of the main writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.39139 of 2 0 1 0 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 8th December, 2010 pnb