IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10869 of 2005 Between: Daggubati Balakrishnama Naidu S/o.D.Siddaiah Naidu R/o.Kondepalle Village H/o.Mudigolam Post,Irala Mandal Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Irala, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Irala Chittoor District. 4 The Divisional Engineer, Department of Roads and Buildings Chittoor Division, Chittor. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.S.BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing notice dated 25-04-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner claims to be a landless poor person in occupation of Ac.0.01 ½ cents (at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in the affidavit the extent of land is shown wrongly as Acs.2.80 cents) in Survey No.1187/4 of Kondepalli Village of Eguvachavatapalli Gram Panchayat of Irala Mandal, Chittoor District for the last 40 to 50 years. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that when respondent No.2 issued notice dated 25-04-2005, he filed O.S.No.6 of 2005 on the file of I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, seeking permanent injunction, that he also filed I.A.No.22 of 2005 for a temporary injunction and that the said proceedings are pending. When respondent No.2 did not refrain from proceeding further in pursuance of the said notice, pending the suit, he filed the present writ petition questioning the said notice. The main premise on which the present writ petition filed is that respondent No.2 has not followed the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) in issuing the impugned notice. In the counter-affidavit filed along with the vacate stay petition, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District, it is stated that the petitioner encroached into Ac.0.01 ½ cents of land in Survey No.1187/4, which is classified as village site poramboke, and according to the village accounts, the same is vested in the Government. It is further stated that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in WPMP No.13965 of 2005 filed in this writ petition, a notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued to the petitioner and that the petitioner has not offered any explanation. At the hearing, Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as pleaded by respondent No.2 in the counter-affidavit, notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued during the pendency of this writ petition. He, however, asserted that the plea of respondent No.2 that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner in response to the said notice issued under Section 7 of the Act is not correct. He claimed, on instructions, that a detailed explanation was submitted in reply to the notice and that no order has been passed so far. Inasmuch as a notice under Section 7 of the Act was admittedly given by respondent No.2 after the filing of the present writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are seeking to evict him without following due process of law does not any longer subsist. While respondent No.2 took the stand that no explanation has been filed, learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that an explanation was in fact filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner has not already filed an explanation to the notice under Section 7 of the Act, he is permitted to file the same within a period of three (3) weeks from today. Respondent No.2 shall then consider the said explanation and pass an order under Section 6 of the Act thereafter. It is needless to state that till such time, as respondent No.2 passes an appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in question. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.2365 of 2006 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 18th June, 2008 Note: Issue C.C in a week. vrn