IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9064 of 2000 Between: 1 Mohd Sharifuddin, S/o. late Naseeruddin, R/o. Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District. 2 Mohd. Fayazuddin, S/o. late Naseeruddin, R/o. Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District. 3 Gulam Mohiuddin, S/o. Adbul Aziz R/o. Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District. 4 layaq Ali, S/o. Dosth Mohd. R/o. Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District. 5 Smt. Myadari Anjamma, W/o. Nagaiah, R/o. Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District 3 The Distrcit Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed to set aside proceedings, dated 15.05.2000 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have perused the record and heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The petitioners, who claimed to be the owners of land admeasuring Ac.0.03 guntas in Survey No.58/1 of Narsapur Village and Mandal, Medak District, assailed the impugned proceedings mainly on two grounds, namely, since the land in question, which is a private property, is owned by the petitioners, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Act and that the impugned proceedings are not preceded by any notice under Section 7 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia averred that petitioner No.3 and one late Myadari Nagaiah, husband of petitioner No.5 were served with notices under Section 7 of the Act on 05.01.1993 and that since the other petitioners claimed that in a partition, they have occupied the Government land, they were not served with notices as the original encroachers were served with notices. It is also averred that the cases of petitioner No.3 and husband of petitioner No.5 among others were considered for regularisation of their illegal possession in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.10641 of 1994 on 17.06.1994 and the same were rejected. Having regard to the above facts, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 29.09.2000 is vacated and WPMP.No.11650 of 2000 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th JULY, 2008. kvni