THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 9263 of 2008 Oral Order: The petitioner alleging that the respondents, without issuing notice to her and without conducting any enquiry, tried to dispossess her from the land in question, earlier filed Writ Petition in W.P. No. 10107 of 2007, inter alia seeking a direction to the Tahsildar, Payakaraopet, not to dispossess her from the land in question. The said writ petition, by order dated 03.07.2007, was dismissed holding thus: “Whether the petitioner is claiming the property based on a forged document or not is a matter for enquiry. Therefore, the first respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Payakaraopet Mandal, should conduct enquiry into the question whether the patta bearing DR.No.587/1408/99, dated 30.06.1999, allegedly issued in favour of Kakarlapudi Venkata Ramabadra Raju, S/o Neeladri Raju (husband of the petitioner) of Satyavaram village, is genuine patta or forged patta. If in the enquiry it is revealed that the patta produced before this Court is forged document, the Tahsildar should initiate criminal action against the petitioner. Further, if the petitioner is still in possession, as alleged, she cannot be evicted without following due process of law.” As directed by this Court, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice dated 26.09.2007, under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, calling upon the petitioner to appear before him for enquiry. The petitioner states that after the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 10107 of 2007, she made a representation requesting the respondents not to dispossess her from the land in question and also not to take possession of her land. Now it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.1, without considering her representation, has issued the impugned notice dated 26.09.2007, which is illegal and arbitrary. The impugned notice dated 26.09.2007 has been issued by respondent No.1, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10107 of 2007, which inter alia directed that due process be followed before evicting the petitioner from the land in question. However, the petitioner, without appearing before respondent No.1, as directed by him in the impugned notice, has filed this writ petition on the ground that the impugned notice has been issued without considering her representation. Pendency of the representation of the petitioner is not a bar for the respondents to conduct an enquiry, which in fact, is being conducted as per the orders dated 26.09.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10107 of 2007. Since the impugned notice has been issued in compliance of the orders of this Court, no exception can be taken thereto. The writ petition is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 25th April 2008 KSR