IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 15985 of 2004 Between: Kothamasu Purnachandra Rao, s/o Sankara Rao, Siva Industries, Ramakrishnapuram, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chirala, Prakasam District. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3 Smt.Rachabathuni Rajeswari, w/o Omsankara Rao, Ramakrishnapuram, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring that the impugned notice Rc.B/1092/96, dt.29-8-2004 issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Chirala directing the petitioner to vacate an extent of 0.02 cents in Sy.No.331/3 (Plot No.28-A) of Ramakrishnapuram, Hamlet of Devangapuri, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District is illegal, without jurisdiction and invalid. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.HARINATH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER: By the impugned notice dated 29-08-2004, petitioner was informed that he is in occupation of Ac.0.02 cents of land in Sy.No.331/3 (Plot No.28A) of Ramakrishnapuram, hamlet of Devangapuri in Chirala Mandal, in which house site patta was granted to Smt.Rachabathuni Rajeswari and called upon to vacate the said property failing which, action will be taken under the provisions of the A.P. Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). By the impugned proceedings, petitioner was only informed about his possession of the property, which was assigned to a third party and on his failing to vacate the said property, necessary proceedings would be initiated against him. So far no proceedings as such were initiated against the petitioner for due eviction. As and when such proceedings are initiated, it is always open for the petitioner to file his explanation and show that the land which is in his possession is not the very same land, which was assigned to a third party as stated in the notice. In view of the same, no cause arises for entertaining the present Writ Petition on mere issuance of notice. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J September 9, 2004 MRR To: 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chirala, Prakasam District. 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 3 Two C.C.s to the G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T.) 4 Two C.D. Copies.