THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26331 of 2010 Dated 26th October, 2010 Between: Konijeti Malyadri …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, East Godavari District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 20.09.2010 passed by respondent No.2 and to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.35 cents in survey No.68/4 of Sankarapuram Village of Nidadavolu Mandal, West Godavari District, under registered sale deed dated 14.04.1986. It is his further case that he was granted ryotwari patta on 26.01.2005. Respondent No.2, vide his notice dated 20.09.2010 impugned in this writ petition, called upon the petitioner to appear before him within a period of seven days of receipt of the notice along with record pertaining to his title in respect of the abovementioned land as he was allegedly in occupation of Government land. The petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 02.10.2010 served on respondent No.2, wherein he has asserted his title in pursuance of ryotwari patta granted on 26.01.2005 and while terming the impugned notice as arbitrary and illegal, the legal notice called upon respondent No.2 to stall all further proceedings. In the present writ petition, the petitioner, while challenging the impugned notice of respondent No.2, alleged that without passing any order, respondent No.2 is seeking to dispossess him. In my opinion, the impugned notice per se does not suffer from any illegality because respondent No.2 has merely called upon the petitioner to be present before him with the relevant documents of title in order to verify whether he is in occupation of the Government land or not. Instead of appearing before respondent No.2, the petitioner has caused a legal notice issued calling upon respondent No.2 to desist from taking further action. Therefore, I do not find any reason to invalidate the impugned notice. Inasmuch as the petitioner has already caused a legal notice served on respondent No.2, where he has traced title to the land in question, respondent No.2 shall consider the contents of the legal notice and pass appropriate orders. If respondent No.2 is not convinced about the title of the petitioner, he shall pass an order with detailed reasons and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till this exercise is completed, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. Subject to the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33628 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th October, 2010 GHN