IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:21142 of 2008 Between: Bellakurthi Nagalakshmi W/o. Chithambaram R/o. Door no. 22-51-16, Town Hall Road, Near Kurupam Market, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam. 3 Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. P.V.L.BHANU PRAKASH FOR DR.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.3: SMT. V.PREETHI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in Survey No.108/5 of Madhuravada Village. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner claimed that she was granted an assignment through a patta issued on 20.02.1979. It is her case that when the respondents sought to interfere with her possession by issuing a show cause notice, she ﬁled WP.No.19658 of 1987, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.12.1987 with the observation that the Tahsildar is entitled to pass appropriate order in pursuance of the show cause notice issued by him, after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and that if an adverse order is passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy before an appropriate forum. The grievance of the petitioner is that without passing any order, the respondents have been trying to interfere with her possession by cutting the trees. As directed by this Court as far back as 29.12.1987, respondent No.2 ought to have passed an order. It is not known whether he has not passed any order or he passed an order but has not communicated the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass an order on the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, if not already passed. If an order has already been passed, he shall communicate a copy of the same to the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks. In such an event, the petitioner is entitled to avail her remedy to question the said order. Till passing of order by respondent No.2 or communicating a copy of an order if already passed, the respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of Acs.5.00 of land. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.27633 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 26th SEPTEMBER, 2008. kvni