THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 12165 of 2002 Oral order: The petitioner claims to be a poor agricultural labour and that he is in possession and occupation of land in an extent of Ac. 0.09 cents in Sy. No. 1531/2 of Ontimitta village, and while so, the petitioner states that the respondents tried to dispossess him from the land in question. Questioning such action of the respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, by order dated 08.07.2002, while admitting the writ petition granting interim directions directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. Praying to set aside the interim order, the respondents filed vacate petition as also counters. In the counter it is stated that the land admeasuring Acs. 194.92 cents in Sy. No. 1531/2 in Ontimitta village and Mandal is classified as tank bed proamboke of Pedda Cheruvu, and some people encroached the land on the northern side of the tank. That the tank has an ayacut of Acs. 1014.28 cents. The petitioner has occupied an extent of Acs. 0.09 cents of land in the said survey number along with others. He has constructed two rooms in an extent of Acs. 0.02 cents, and as he was trying to encroach the abutting land, the locals objected to the same and made a complaint to the District Collector, who directed the petitioner to stop the constructions. At that point of time, the wife of the petitioner made a representation to the District Collector for assignment of the said land for construction of a house. However, the same was rejected stating that the land which she was asking to be assigned is classified tank bed poramboke and no patta has to be issued to any body. The District Collector instructed the Mandal Revenue Officer, to protect the tank bed lands and that no pattas should be assigned in respect of the said lands. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued notices to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1905, but the petitioner did not submit any explanation, and when steps were being taken to evict him, he filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question by encroaching the same since more than 30 years, and if the respondents intend to evict him, they have to issue him proper notice and call for his explanation, and without undertaking such course, the respondent cannot evict the petitioner. However, upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, it is agreed to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: Since the respondents have already initiated steps to evict the petitioner, they are directed to issue proper notice to the petitioner, and after considering the explanation, if any, to be submitted by him, pass appropriate orders. Until such exercise is undertaken, the interim directions granted by this Court shall continue. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA, J Dated: 5th March, 2010 KSR