IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16719 of 2009 Between: Kamal Nayan Dhananiwala ...Petitioner And The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nirmal, Adilabad District and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Advocate for Sri S. Niranjan Reddy. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No. 3 : Sri S. Nageswar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, C. J.) 1) At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. 2) The petitioner has challenged the validity of notice dated 1st August, 2009 issued by respondent No.2 on the ground that the notice does not refer to any Act or section under which it has been given. 3) It is the case of the petitioner that the notice is illegal and, therefore, it should be quashed and set aside. 4) In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Nirmal. It has been submitted in the said counter that an enquiry is being made in pursuance of a survey report submitted by the Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records to find out whether the petitioner has made any encroachment on Kandakam land. 5) In view of the fact that still it is not certain as to whether an encroachment has been made, and if so, to what extent, in our opinion, a vague notice has been issued by respondent No.2. It cannot be disputed that the notice has not been given under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. 6) In the circumstances, respondent No.2 is directed to find out whether the petitioner has made any encroachment and if so, he shall immediately issue necessary notice so as to see that the encroachment made by the petitioner is removed in accordance with law. 7) In view of the above, the notice dated 1st August, 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside with liberty to respondent No.2 to take appropriate action in accordance with law as soon as possible. 8) The petition stands disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 12th October, 2009 C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS