THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.23120 of 2010 DT.25.10.2010 Between: Bollu Nagendra Prasad and others. … Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Subba Reddy.S Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.5 : Sri M.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for respondent No.6 : None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.4 to 6 in attempting to demolish the petitioners’ houses, whose descriptions are given in the prayer of the writ petition, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that in respect of the properties in their occupation, respondent No.4 issued notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) on 23.06.2009 and that the petitioners have submitted their respective replies on 04.07.2009. The grievance of the petitioners is that even before an order under Section 6 of the Act is passed, respondent Nos.4 to 6 have been interfering with their possession over the properties and seeking to demolish the structures existing thereon. At the admission stage, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) has taken notice for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and notices were ordered0on respondent Nos.5 and 6. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, submitted that respondent No.4 has not passed any order so far under Section 6 of the Act. Sri M.Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel, entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.5, but no instructions are reported on its behalf. In my opinion, until and unless an order is passed under Section 6 of the Act, none of the respondents can interfere with the petitioners’ possession over the properties in question. Accordingly, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession over the properties in question till an order is passed by respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the Act. In the event the petitioners feel aggrieved by the order that may be passed by respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the Act, they are entitled to work out their remedies in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 20.09.2010, granted by this Court, is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.29505 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 25.10.2010. VGB