THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 884 of 2009 Oral order: Assailing the notice dated 03.12.2008, issued by respondent No.2, namely the Assistant Engineer, T.L.C. Sub-Division, A.P. Transco, Visakhapatnam, as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. By the said notice, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that as the electricity supply line to be laid by the Department would pass through her land in Sy. No. 357, Madduturu village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhaptnam, the palmyrah trees standing in the said land would be removed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in Sy. No. 357, Madduturu village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhaptnam, does not belong to the petitioner, and as such, issuance of the impugned notice to the petitioner is bad and is liable to be set aside. Respondent No.2 filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the local inspection, they came to know that respondent No.2 is the owner of the property in the survey number in question, and therefore, they have issued notice to the petitioner informing her about the laying of the electricity line, which would pass through her land, and they would remove the trees standing therein, and as such, no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The material placed by the petitioner before the Court, including the registered sale deed, prima facie would go to show that the petitioner is not the owner of the land in the survey number in question, but is the owner of the land in Sy.Nos.302-1, 302-2 and 359-1, Muduthuru village, Atchuthapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Since the petitioner is not the owner of the land in the survey number in question, the action of respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the notice issued by respondent No.2, impugned in the writ petition is liable to be quashed, and is accordingly quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 6th February, 2009 KSR