THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26428 of 2010 DT.26.10.2010 Between: Talluri Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.Muralidhar Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in issuing notice in Form-I under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) as contrary to the interim order, dated 21.10.2008, in W.P.No.21831 of 2008, and, consequently, quash the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the land admeasuring Acs.3.61 cents comprised in Survey Nos.323-1, 323-4, 323-5, 323-9 and 323-10 of Chennur Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the above-mentioned land. He has earlier filed W.P.No.23431 of 2008 for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land as illegal. This Court granted interim orders directing the respondents to maintain status quo. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner is in possession of the assigned land. At the hearing Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the very allegation that the land in possession of the petitioner is an assigned land is absolutely incorrect and that, therefore, the impugned notice cannot be sustained. In my opinion, the writ petition is premature because the impugned proceedings are in the nature of show cause notice and the same does not in any manner come into conflict with the above- mentioned order passed by this Court in the previous writ petition. If the petitioner has, in his possession, the relevant material to show that the subject land is not an assigned land, he is entitled to submit his explanation and produce the material in support thereof to show that the land is not an assigned land. If such explanation is offered and material is produced, it is incumbent upon respondent No.3 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such an order, he is entitled to work out his remedy in accordance with law. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek interference of this Court with the notice issued by respondent No.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the time granted by respondent No.3 is expiring by today and that his client may be given a reasonable time for submitting his explanation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation within ten days from today. On receipt of such explanation along with the material, if any, from the petitioner, respondent No.3 shall consider and pass appropriate orders, after giving him an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.26428 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 26.10.2010. VGB