THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.762 of 2006 Date:13.07.2010 Between: V.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy & others. ………..Petitioners. And The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittor and others. ………Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.762 of 2006 ORDER: This is the second journey of the writ petitioners to this Court. Earlier, they field W.P.No.11491 of 2010 assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with their possession without following due process of law. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 20.7.2005. The relevant portion of the order reads hereunder: “A fact remains that a Registered Sale Deed has been obtained by the first petitioner from Ramaiah. Whether the sale is legal or contrary to the terms and conditions of the assignment is required to be gone into the proceedings in case of such proceedings are initiated by the respondents. Unless necessary proceedings are initiated under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) or any other Act, the petitioners who are in possession cannot be thrown out. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow the procedure established under law in case the petitioners are to be evicted from the land in question. The petitioners are directed not to put up any further constructions on the land in question till the conclusion of the proceedings to be initiated by respondents. No order as to costs.” The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati-3rd respondent issued notice under Section 7 of A.P Land Encroachment Act 1905. The text of the notice reads as hereunder: “Calling for the explanation either in person or in writing on or before 12.9.2005 as to why the structures, property etc., on the lands cannot be removed.” Assailing the said notice, the petitioners have filed this writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They also moved WPMP No.910 of 2006 seeking interim relief. When the WPMP came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have put up constructions and they have been residing there since a long time and they are eligible for regularization of their possession under Land Encroachment Scheme. In disputably, the notice impugned in the writ petition came to be issued consequent to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11491 of 2005. Virtually, what is challenged in the writ petition is show cause notice. If the petitioners have got any objection, they are at liberty to respond to the show cause notice and invite final orders thereon. Since the time allowed to the petitioners for submitting the explanation has been expired, I deem it appropriate to allow four weeks time from today so as to enable them to put on their objections to the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, to the show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act within four weeks. The petitioners also are liberty to submit application for realization of their unauthorized occupation under the land Encroachment Scheme, if any in vogue. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:13.7.2010 mrb