IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 776 of 2009 Between: Kankatala Babu Rao S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Sitanagaram village and Mandal East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional officer, Rajahmundry Revenue Division, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Sitanagaram mandal East Godavari 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to disposes the petitioner from the possession and enjoyment of an extent of 0.30 1/2 cents inRs.No.141/2B/2 (141/2D) of Singavaram village, Sitanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District by issuing the notice dated 10.1.2009 under Land Encroachment Act as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the said Act and violative of principles of natural justice consequently directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider the request of the petitioner to issue patta for the said land on payment and till such tile not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.T.V.S.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is in possession of Ac.0.30 cents of land in survey No.141/2D of Singavaram Village, Sitanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. Proceedings were initiated against him under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act (for short ‘the Act’), in the year 1979. On receipt of the notice under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioner submitted a representation for grant of patta over the land. The Tahasildar issued a memo, dated 24.10.1980, directing the Revenue Inspector to issue A-1 notice for assignment and conversion of the land. The petitioner states that such a notice was issued and the market value was also ascertained from the registration department. The second respondent issued notice, dated 10.01.2009, under Section 7 of the Act once again requiring the petitioner as to why he should not be evicted from the land. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. In the ordinary course of things, the petitioner has to submit his explanation to the show cause notice and avail the remedy of appeal, if any order adverse to his interest is passed. In the instant case, the proceedings under the Act were initiated against the petitioner in the year 1979 and a representation made by the petitioner for assignment of that very land was processed to a substantial extent. Notice in Form A-1 was issued and the market value was also ascertained. The second respondent has to finalize the said proceedings and it is only when an order is passed not acceding to the request of the petitioner, that an occasion would arise for initiation of proceedings under the Act. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the second respondent shall finalize the proceedings as regards the request made by the petitioner for assignment of the land, duly taking into account the memo, dated 24.10.1980, issued by the then Tahasildar and not to pursue the proceedings under the Act till finalization of the said proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dated:22.01.2009 Note : Communicate operative portion of the order by wire at party’s costs. (B/o) GJ