THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25411 of 2010 DT.25.11.2010 Between: S.Narasimha Rao and others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Krishna District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sreenivasa Sarma Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in laying road over the land in Survey No.182/2 of Guntapalli Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary. After filing the writ petition, the petitioner has filed W.P.M.P.No.33699 of 2010 seeking permission to amend the writ petition for setting aside notice, dated 02.06.2010, issued by respondent No.2. Today, a separate order has been passed allowing the said application. Consequently, the petitioner has challenged notice, dated 02.06.2010, issued by respondent No.2. A perusal of the notice shows that the same was issued under Section 6 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). It is stated therein that the petitioner is in occupation of land admeasuring Ac.0.04 cents of vacant land of Guntapalli Village, which was classified as burial ground in Survey No.185 and that he shall vacate the same within a period of three days. Thus, the contents of the notice reveal that though it is in the nature of notice, the same is in the nature of an order directing the petitioner to vacate the land. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submitted that a notice was issued under Section 7 of the Act on 30.04.2010 in pursuance of the directions contained in the order, dated 11.03.2010, passed by this Court in W.P.No.5140 of 2010 and that after receiving the explanation filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. But the impugned order does not refer to any explanation filed by the petitioner nor are the contents thereof considered. The purpose of issuing a show-cause notice as envisaged under Section 7 of the Act is to consider the objections of the person, who is stated to be in unauthorized possession of the land and pass an order of eviction, if the authority concerned is not satisfied with the explanation filed by such person. Therefore, it is incumbent upon respondent No.2 to consider the objections, refer the same and give reasons to reject such objections, if he is not satisfied with the same. By calling for objections and failing to refer the same in the order passed under Section 6 of the Act, respondent No.2 has reduced the very purpose of issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act to a mere formality. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to pass a fresh order, wherein he shall discuss the contents of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and give reasons, if he intends to reject the same. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.32455 and 33698 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 25.11.2010. VGB