IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25504 of 2008 Between: Vanga Laxma Reddy S/o.Mr.Bhoom Reddy R/o.Muduchintalapally Village, Shamirpet Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Tehsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondents in not disposing off the objections / explanations dated 30.09.2008 issued to the show cause notice dated 24.09.2008 and their attempts to demolish the structures in petitioners property in land 161 sq. yards / 134.5 sq. mtrs., in Sy.No.6, situated at Muduchintalapally Village and Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, R.R. District, and further declare that issuance of the impugned notice vide No.B/1323/2008, dated 24.09.2008, for taking further proceedings U/s. 6 of the Act as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without jurisdiction and contrary to law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in 1997 (4) ALT 428, in the interest of justice and further be pleased to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25504 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner purchased land to an extent of 161 sq.yards/134.5 sq. mtrs in survey No.6 situated at Muduchintalapally Village and Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered sale deed dated 08.11.2002. The petitioner asserts that it is not Government land but private land. When third parties tried to interfere with his possession, he filed O.S.No.680 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District and obtained ad interim injunction in I.A.No.2975 of 2007. When there is an allegation by the defendants therein about the nature of the occupation, the District Panchayat Officer appears to have directed the Divisional Panchayat Officer to conduct enquiry as to the constructions being made by the petitioner. In the meanwhile Tahsildar, Shamirpet, second respondent herein, initiated action under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act, for brevity) and issued notice under Section 7 of the Act on 24.09.2008. The petitioner submitted explanation on 30.09.2008. Second respondent is yet to pass orders under Section 6 of the Act. In the meanwhile it is alleged that the respondents are attempting to take possession illegally without passing any orders. Apprehending that there might be such eventuality, instant writ petition is filed. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, who made submissions after obtaining instructions. He submits that the land is vacant land and when the petitioner was trying to make constructions, he was stopped, pending passing of the orders by second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner and his predecessor in title have been in possession of land from 1954 and the Government cannot claim any right over the same. Be that as it is now that the matter is pending before second respondent under the Act, it would be better if the petitioner stops construction for two weeks from today. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that second respondent should pass orders under Section 6 of the Act immediately within ten days from today after considering the explanation and evidence produced by the petitioner. If for any reason the petitioner is aggrieved by such order, he may prefer an appeal before jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 10 of the Act. It is needless to mention that till an order is passed under Section 6 of the Act, petitioner’s possession cannot be disturbed. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21st November, 2008 GHN To 1 The Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Tehsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 2CCs to GP for Revenue 4 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}