IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14621 of 2011 Between: Smt. Dasari Kamalamma .... Petitioner And The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad & 3 others ....Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14621 of 2011 ORDER: This Writ Petition is directed against show cause notice, dated 18.04.2011, issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation but he has not submitted any explanation, instead has invoked remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that previously similar objection was raised and was enquired by Mandal Revenue Inspector as per his Report bearing No.NDIS 201/209, dated 29.12.2009, wherein no irregularity was found against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the Tahsildar/respondent No.4 herein had no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice and, therefore, justifies maintainability of this Writ Petition. 3. The aforesaid contention is clearly misconceived. The sustainability of earlier report of the Mandal Revenue Inspector addressed to the Tahsildar/4th respondent and irrespective of whether the Tahsildar/4th respondent has taken any decision thereon or not, when any violation is brought to the notice of the Tahsildar, he is competent to issue notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act. In the present case also, the Tahsildar/4th respondent has called upon the petitioner to explain the circumstances appearing against him. 4. In that view of the matter since the petitioner has effective original as well as appellate remedies under the said Act, there is no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. 5. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation if not already submitted, within a period of one (1) week from today and request the Tahsildar/4th respondent to consider the same in accordance with law and the Tahsildar/4th respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter. The status quo as existing today shall be maintained till final orders are passed by the Tahsildar/4th respondent as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 10th June, 2011 KL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.14621 of 2011 Date: 10th June, 2011 KL