HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9710 of 2010 27th April 2010 Between: Anumolu Avnash … PETITIONER(S) and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9710 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Smt V.Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to have purchased an extent of Acs.6.10½ cents of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.9/5, 10/2, 10/4, 10/7, 10/10, 10/12, 10/13 and 10/14 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District; his name was entered in Record of Rights; and he was issued a pattadar passbook. Officials of the second respondent are alleged to have come over the petitioner’s land, to have made markings thereupon, and, on being questioned by the petitioner, the officials of the second respondent are said to have orally informed him that a 100 ft. road from Boyapalem to Mangammaripata would be formed over a part of his land. The petitioner would submit that officials of the second respondent had already started taking steps for laying of the road; the fencing put up by him was partly removed; and the respondents had illegally entered into his land. Smt V.Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, would assert that the petitioner’s apprehension is without basis in as much as the second respondent would not, in any manner, interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the property in question except after initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, in case he is the owner, and, in any other case, after putting him on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard. In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing that the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the land in question except after putting him on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 27th April 2010 CVRK