IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12246 of 2002 Between: Yanadi Yerukala Ashrama School, Markapur, Prakasam District. … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Prakasam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Laxma Reddy Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12246 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.416 of Markapur Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. By the impugned notice, respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to remove the encroachments on or before 08.07.2002 and that if the petitioner has any explanation to oﬀer, it shall do so on or before 05.07.2002. The petitioner, who claimed to have purchased the abovementioned land from the original inamdars, averred that though it submitted its explanation on 02.07.2002, the respondents, without considering the same and passing an order, are trying to interfere with its possession of the land. It has therefore filed the present writ petition. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition without ﬁling his explanation and that after obtaining order from this Court on 09.07.2002 it submitted its explanation. Inasmuch as, the proceedings impugned in this writ petition are in the nature of a notice, there is no need for me to decide the issues raised by the parties on merits. It would suﬃce, if the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner, pass an appropriate order and serve a copy of the same to it. Till then, the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.15166 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.10.2008 ES