IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTHDAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND SIX P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH * * * WP.No.2421 OF 2006 Between: Mrs.Kakarlapudi Sakunthala Devi … Petitioner Versus The District Collector, Visakhapatnam & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.EV.Bhagiratha Rao (292) Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue O R D E R : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt.Pleader for the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband, late Srinivasa Varma purchased an extent of AC:00-85 cents of land out of Acs:4-07 cents in surveyno.158/7, Patta No.348 from Mr.Vampolu Kondala Rao son of Vema Viswanadham for a valid consideration of Rs.30,000-00 on 01-10-1993. Subsequently permission was obtained from Kommadi Gram Panchayat for construction of a tiled house and the same was constructed and the same was assessed vide Assessment No.264 and Door No.2-65 by paying house-tax to the said Gram Panchayat. It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained electrical connection bearing meter no.872 (old meter 334088) and paying consumption charges. It is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Rural issued Proceedings RC.No.1220/2005-A, dated 19-1-2006 under Rule 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Rules 1977 stating that the petitioner was found an extent of 87 sq.yards of land encroached, which is in contravention of sub- section 2 of Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to submit her explanation as to why she should not summarily be evicted. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner filed her explanation on 02-2-2006. The petitioner further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.1601, Revenue (Asn.I) Department dated 29-8-2005 the petitioner is entitled for regularization of encroachment and therefore an application has been filed before the Office of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam on 31-12-2005 and even before the said application is considered and being disposed of, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the merits and pendency of the application before the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and as to whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization of the same pursuant to the said order of the Government. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the said G.O. has no application, as it applies in respect of encroachment but not in respect of purchase of assigned land. However, without considering and disposing of the representation filed by the petitioner on 02-2-2006, the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot take coercive steps against the petitioner. If any order is passed, it will be an appealable one, and therefore, having regard to the above facts, I consider it appropriate to direct the second respondent not to evict the petitioner till a final order is passed and the same is communicated to the petitioner. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. FEBRUARY 10th, 2005. ------------------------ I s L. V. ESWARAIAH, J.