IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18655 of 2008 Between: Konda Nagi Reddy S/o.Sri Venkatasubba Reddy R/o.Krishnareddypalli H/o. Bandaganipalli, Bijamkpalli P.O. Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND Tahsildar, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent herein attempting to resume the land situated in R.S.No.427 admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents of Bandaganipalli village, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District vide notice of the respondent in his Rc.A.171/08-/2008, dated 18.8.2008, without recourse to the Legislated Law as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to pass such other appropriate order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.JAGDISH Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in attempting to resume the land in R.S.No.427 admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents of Bandaganipalli village, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, vide notice dated 18-08-2008, as arbitrary and illegal. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was in occupation of the land in R.S.No.427 admeasuring Ac.2.38 cents of Bandaganipalli village, Udayagiri Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, from a long time, the Government had granted patta assigning the said land to him. While so, a notice dated 18-08-2008 was issued by the respondent seeking to resume an extent of Ac.0.30 cents from out of the land assigned to him on the ground that the same is required for public use and required him to submit his explanation. It is his case that though he submitted his explanation on 22-08-2008 to the impugned notice, without considering the same, the respondent is taking steps to resume the land. Hence the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request, the main writ petition itself is being disposed of. Admittedly, the petitioner had submitted his explanation dated 22-08-2008 to the impugned notice. The petitioner apprehends that without considering his explanation, the respondent would resume his land. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 22-08- 2008 before passing any order pursuant to the impugned notice.. Till then, the respondent is directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dt:28-08-2008 Note: Communicate the operative portion of the order by wire at party’s cost B/o usd