IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24991 of 2008 Between: Ch.V.Satyanarayana Paradesi S/o Rama Murthy, Hindu Door No.3-93 Rayakuduru,Veeravasaram(M) W.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector W.G District Eluru 2 The Tahasildar Veeravasaram(M) Veerasaram,W.G District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing Roc No.368/2008(B) dt 29-10- 2008 issued by the Respondent No.2 as illegal and ultra vires to the provisions of Article 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of India besides directing not to dispossess the petitioner from the property being an extent of Ac 0.02 cents of site situated in R.S.No. 247/1 of Rayakuduru(V) Veeravasaram(M) W.G District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.S.R.ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.24991 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner states that in reply to the notice dated 06.10.2008, issued by respondent No.2, namely the Tahsildar, Veeravasaram Mandal, under Section 7(3) of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 calling upon him to handover the land in his occupation to the government, he submitted detailed explanation on 13.10.2008, bringing to the notice of respondent No.2 that the land in question originally belonged to his paternal grandmother, and that by virtue of a will executed by her, he got the land in question after her death on 11.01.1994, and since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. That on the application made by the original owner, i.e. his paternal grandmother, the Gram Panchayat, Rayakuduru, passed resolution No. 156 on 13.03.1991 granting permission for construction of the building, which was released vide proceedings in Roc. No. 21/91, dated 06.06.1991. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.2 without considering the said explanation, has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 29.10.2008 under Section 6(1) of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, to explain as to why he should not be evicted from the land in question within seven days from the date of its receipt. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. Prima facie, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notice dated 29.10.2008 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 13.10.2008, in that it neither refers to the explanation submitted by the petitioner nor the factual aspects said to have been brought by the petitioner to his notice. Since respondent No.2, has issued the impugned notice, without considering the explanation of the petitioner, in a mechanical manner, the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned notice dated 29.10.2008 issued by respondent No.2, is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for passing appropriate orders after considering the explanation, said to have been submitted by the petitioner on 13.10.2008. Till appropriate speaking orders are passed, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 14.11.2008 Note: Issue wire at party’s cost. (B/o) v v/k s r