IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 20083 of 2008 Between: Gude Venkateswarlu, S/o. Ramabhotlu, R/o. 8-57 (2), Mangammavari Road, Ongole, Prakasham District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Ongole, Prakasham District. 2.The Tahsildar, Ongole Prakasham District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ, order or direction(s) essentially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notice dated 08-7-2008 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of the provisions of the Act 1 of 1973 besides being violative of principles of Natural Justice and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.20083 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner claiming to be the owner and possessor of dry land to an extent of Acs.40.52 cents situated at Rajupalem, Lakshmipuram, Ongole Taluk, Prakasam District. It is stated that the petitioner ﬁled his declaration before the authorities concerned on 20.05.1976 and thereafter, the Government has acquired part of the land for N.S.P., water supply. While so, the impugned notice was issued by the ﬁrst respondent on 08.07.2008 stating that the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ongole passed ex-parte orders on 12.05.2007 holding that the petitioner has surplus land, and directing him to surrender 0.8677 standard holdings as and when NSP water is supplied to those lands and to furnish the details of land to be surrendered by him. Aggrieved thereby, he ﬁled the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not aware of the proceedings pending before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Ongole and he was never served with any notice. The learned counsel also contended that the petitioner is not supplied with the necessary documents. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that as the petitioner was only issued with the notice, he can as well submit his objection or explanation to the said notice and without doing so, he has straight away approached this Court. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, giving liberty to the petitioner to ﬁle his objections or submit his explanation to the impugned notice, the writ petition is dismissed. However, as it is stated that the petitioner is not supplied with necessary documents, he is directed to make an application before the authorities concerned for supply of necessary documents, if any, and on such application, the authorities are directed to furnish the same in accordance with law. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 16.09.2008 VGB