IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12971 of 2008 Between: Kavagapu Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Satyanarayana, Male, Hindu, D.No. 16-300/1, Sector -V, Arilova, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any Writ, Order or direction, more particualrly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice in R.C.No. 644/2008 splri dt. 12-6-2008 for the land for an extent of 1000sq. yards in Survey Number 22/2 of Mudasarlova (V), Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam and attempting to disposes the petitioner on 18-6-2008 without passing any orders under section 6 of the Act 3 of 1905 pending the application of his vendor before the government in application number 62820/2002 dated 7-10-2002 for grant of ryotwari patta under proviso to section 11 of the Estates Abolition Act 1948 is illegal, arbitrary and capricious and suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction to the respondent and consequently to set aside impugned notice referred to above or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 12971 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims that the land in Sy. Nos. 22/1 and 22/2 of Mudasarlova village of Chingadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam, is their ancestral property, and that after their death, he is in possession and cultivation of the same. While so, the petitioner states that the respondent issued him notice dated 12.06.2008 under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and that he has also submitted his explanation thereto. However, it is his grievance that the respondent without passing any orders thereon, is threatening to dispossess him from the land in question. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent, and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions. Unless and until the respondent considers and passes appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the respondent shall not disposes the petitioner, and they shall maintain status quo obtaining as on today. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 23.06.2008. Note: Issue wire at party’s cost. (B/o) VGSR/KSR