THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.464 of 2009 ORDER: The Tahsildar, Avanigadda Mandal, 1st respondent herein issued notice, dated 19.12.2008, under Section 7(3) of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioner directing him to explain as to why he shall not be evicted from an extent of Ac.2.19 cents of land in Survey No.23/1 of Puligadda Village. The notice discloses that the petitioner has raised banana garden and 34 coconut trees. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.12.2008 stating that the land does not belong to Government, he purchased it in the year 2001 from Venkata Ranganayaka and others and his vendors in turn, purchased it in the year 1968. On receiving the explanation, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 05.01.2009 requiring him to furnish the copies of the documents. The petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated against him on the ground that the provisions of the Act do not apply to him, in view of the fact that the land is under cultivation for the last several decades and that it is owned by private individuals. He complains that even while the proceedings are pending, he is being prevented from cultivating the land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show cause notice and in fairness to the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued a further notice requiring him to file copies of the documents. The petitioner can be said to have suffered any grievance if only any orders adverse to his interests are passed. This Court is not inclined to declare the proceedings as without jurisdiction at this stage. So far as the grievance of the petitioner about the cultivation is concerned, the very purpose of the proceedings is that the petitioner is cultivating the land unauthorisedly. Till he is evicted through proper orders, he cannot be prevented from cultivating the land. The notice itself discloses that banana garden and coconut trees are existing on the land. The interests of the petitioner can be protected by directing that if an order under Section 6 of the Act is passed against him, his possession shall not be disturbed for a period of one month. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the 1st respondent shall take into account the defence pleaded by the petitioner and give him an opportunity of personal hearing before any order under Section 6 of the Act is passed and that the possession of the petitioner shall not be disturbed either during the pendency of the proceedings or for a period of one month, if any order under Section 6 of the Act is passed against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 23.01.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.464 of 2009 Date: 23.01.2009 JSU