IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:15206 of 2002 Between: Kasipuram Palakshamma W/o K.Venkatreddy Sugepalli Village, Brahmasamudam Mandal, Anantapur Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer Dharmavaram Anantapur Dist 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Brahmasamudram Mandal, Anantapur Dist 3 Harijana Thimappa son of Kunit Basappa Sugepalli Village, Brahmasmudram mandal, Anantapur dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. P.CHAKRAVARTHY FOR MR.O.MANOHAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2:AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. T.RAMAKRISHNA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare notice, dated 10.06.2002 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal and without jurisdiction. Heard Sri P.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. On 23.10.2008, Sri T.Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 requested for adjournment to enable him to get CRP.No.135 of 2007 ﬁled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree of the civil Court, posted along with this writ petition. Today, at the hearing, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 stated that the said CRP is again adjourned to 11.11.2008. Since the issue raised in this writ petition is very limited to the competence of respondent No.2 to issue impugned notice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition independent of the pending Civil Revision Petition. The dispute pertains to the land of an extent of Acs.5.00 in Survey No.394-1 of Santekodapuram Village, Brahmasamudram Mandal, Anantapur District. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to the interest over the said land from Sri G.Thimmappa under a registered will, dated 14.06.1991. When respondent No.3 started interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the said land, she ﬁled O.S.No.72 of 1992 on the ﬁle of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg for declaration of her title and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on 27.07.1999. The petitioner averred that on her ﬁling a petition, respondent No.1 vide his order, dated 01.11.1997 directed respondent No.2 not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the said land. The petitioner felt aggrieved by notice, dated 10.06.2002 issued by respondent No.2 whereby he directed the petitioner and respondent No.3 not to enter the land and cultivate the same. As noted above, under the impugned notice, respondent No.2 directed both the parties not to enter the land. Neither the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue nor Sri T.Ramakrishna Rao could throw light on any provision of law under which respondent No.2 can exercise such a power preventing the parties from entering into the land. In the absence of any statutory power conferred on respondent No.2, he has no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue such a notice. If an appeal is pending before the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, the appellate authority is competent to pass appropriate order. In this view of the matter and without going into the respective claims of the parties regarding their entitlement to the land in question, the impugned notice is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 6th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni