IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28647 of 2008 Between: 1 Karri Appa Rao S/o. Late Jagannadham R/o. D.No. 31-25-28 Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 2 Karri Appala Naidu S/o. Late Appala Swamy, R/o. Nathayyapalem, BHPV Post, Visakhapatnam.12 3 Karri Eswara Rao S/o. Late Mulayya R/o. D.No. 31-25-1/2 Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 4 Karri Mullayya S/o. Jagannadham R/o. D.No. 31-25-29 Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 5 Smt. Kada Lakshmikantham W/o. Mulayya, Hindu R/o. D.No. 31-25-30/1 Kurmannapalem, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam 3 The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notices vide Rc No. 268/2008/SA /dt. 22-12-2008 issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act i.e, Act 3 of 1905 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents herein to drop the proceedings issued under A.P. Land Encroachment Act i.e Act 3 of 1905 by impugned notices dt. 22-12-2008. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.V.SUBRAHMANYA NARUSU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners feel aggrieved of a notice, dated 22.12.2008 issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Gajuwaka Mandal, under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). One of the grounds urged by the petitioners is that the Mandal Revenue Inspector does not have jurisdiction to issue notice and it is only the Tahsildar, the third respondent that can initiate proceedings under the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Though several grounds are urged on behalf of the petitioners including the one relating to the impact of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, this Court is not inclined to deal with the same. The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned notice issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector can be sustained in law. Under the Act, it is only the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar that is conferred with the power. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is, however, left open to the third respondent or the Deputy Tahsildar of the Mandal to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 13th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni