IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31672 of 2011 BETWEEN Sri Sridevi Industries. ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. VENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner claims that it is in possession of Ac.3.03 guntas in Sy.No.282/3 of Jammikunta village in pursuance of title document being registered sale deed No.5/1997 dated 21.01.1997. It is also claimed that they have constructed a rice mill and a compound wall as per the permission of the Gram Panchayat. Petitioner was, however, given a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on 29.11.2007. Alleging that the petitioner is likely to be dispossessed of 3 guntas of land, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, submits that after receipt of explanation of the petitioner, the Tahsildar has directed a survey to be conducted to ascertain the extent of land and the survey number, which is in occupation of the petitioner. Though the learned Government Pleader states that a memo to that eﬀect was served on the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has not received any such memo. 4. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the Tahsildar – third respondent to serve the memo, regarding the survey proposed, on the petitioner and conduct the survey on the date and time to be ﬁxed by the third respondent and thereafter, pass appropriate orders after considering petitioner’s reply and after opportunity to the petitioner in the proceedings relating to Section 7 notice, referred to above and pending passing of final orders, as above, no coercive action be taken by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 7, 2011 DSK