THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22681 of 2010 Date:13.09.2010 Between: A. Gangayyamma and others. ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.L. Narasimha Rao for Sri A.V. Sesha Sai Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent Nos.1,3 and 4: --. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice dated 31.08.2010 issued by respondent No.4 seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the land admeasuring Ac.0.10 cents in survey No.4/1 of Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam Urban Mandal, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of the land to an extent of Acs.1.10 cents in the abovementioned survey number having jointly purchased by her and her husband under a registered sale deed dated 17.10.1964. It is her pleaded case that an exchange deed was executed on 17.06.1968 for an extent of Ac.1.00 in favour of one P. Sri Ramulu and that thereafter the petitioners’ family was left with Ac.0.10 cents of land. She further pleaded that they have constructed three shops and also raised small structures which were assigned municipal numbers by the Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam and that respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice, wherein he has called upon the petitioners to deliver possession of the land and not to carry on permanent constructions thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.4 has absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever to issue the impugned notice. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that respondent No.4 has treated the petitioners’ possession as illegal encroachment. The learned Assistant Government Pleader is unable to show any provision of law by which respondent No.4 is empowered to demand possession from the petitioners. Under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, it is respondent No.3 who is empowered to initiate proceedings for eviction of the encroachers. The impugned notice does not refer to any such proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 much less passing of an order of eviction. In the absence of such action undertaken by respondent No.3, respondent No.4 has no authority or jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice. The impugned notice is accordingly quashed. Liberty is, however, given to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for eviction of the petitioners, if they are of the opinion that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the Government land. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.28933 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th September, 2010 GHN