IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4312 of 2005 Between: Smt. Pappala Rama Naga Laxmi … Petitioner AND The Secretary, Revenue (Assignment) Dept., Govt., o A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Chandra Sekhara Rao Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4312 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioner from the land situated in Sy.No.58 to the extent of Ac.0.76 cents of Sarvasiddi Village, S.Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without issuing notice and following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri G. Chandra Sekhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). In the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the property in question and hence notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, ‘the Act’) was issued to the father of the petitioner and one Vesam Sarvesam in the month of February, 2005 and that the said notices were refused to be received by them. It is further claimed that consequently the notices were published in the Grampanchayat by beat of tom-tom in the village and that an order under Section 6 of the Act was passed on 20.01.2005, which was sought to be served on 27.01.2005, but they were not received. It is also averred that after recording the statements of the encroachers, the possession was taken by the Government on 10.02.2005 under a panchanama. No reply-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the face of the averments contained in the counter affidavit that after issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act, an order under Section 6 of the Act was passed, the contention of the petitioner that the respondents are seeking to dispossess her without following due process of law, cannot be accepted. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed under Section 6 of the Act, she is entitled to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5776 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.06.2008 ES