HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.23613 of 2004 Date: January 20, 2011 Between: Ete Venkata Subbaiah, S/o.Subbaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Marripadu village and Mandal, Nellore District … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District, and others … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, taking possession his land admeasuring Ac.3.35 cents situated in Sy.No.264-1, situated at Naginenigunta village, Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. He, further, questions proceedings dated 23-09-2004 issued by the third respondent vide R.C.B.No.264/2004 as well as the order dated 22-09-2004 passed under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, vide R.C.B.No.264/04. In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner in support of the writ petition itself, it is stated that the aforesaid land is a Government land and he, being landless poor, occupied the same as it is vacant. The relief in the writ petition is sought mainly on the ground that after initiating proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, respondents have issued notice under Section 7 of the said Act, for which explanation was filed, but, without issuing any further notice as required under Section 6 of the Act, respondents are claiming that possession of the land in question has been taken. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that no eviction order has been passed consequent to initiation of proceedings and issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act; in that view of the matter, it is not permissible to take possession of the land. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.3-Mandal Revenue Officer, Marripadu Mandal, Nellore District. In the counter-affidavit, while denying various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated, the land in Sy.No.264/1 is classified as Cheruvu Poramboke and any encroachment over the same is objectionable; thus proceedings were initiated by issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act, on 26-06-2004. It is stated, thereafter, further notice was issued under Section 6 of the Act and the petitioner was evicted from the said land. While denying the allegation of the petitioner that he is a landless poor person, it is stated that an extent of Ac.2.40 cents of land in Sy.No.204/1, was assigned in his favour in the year 1992 and no application is submitted by him seeking assignment of any further land in his favour. A reference is made to the order of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.1142 Revenue dated 18-06-1954, prohibiting assignment of Tank Poramboke lands. The counter- affidavit further states that the petitioner possesses an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Act against the impugned proceedings; as such, this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. The only argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that no notice is issued to the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act consequent to issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act. But, it is categorically stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that notice has also been issued under Section 6 of the Act and possession of the land has been taken thereafter. It is not in dispute that the subject land is a Government land and it is evident from the counter-affidavit that it is a Tank Poramboke, which cannot be assigned. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents, evicting the petitioner from the said land by initiating proceedings under the Act. It is also to be noticed that though the petitioner alleges that he is a landless poor person, it is the specific case of the respondents in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has already been assigned an extent of Ac.2.40 cents of land in Sy.No.204/1 of Marripadu Mandal and in spite of the same he has encroached the land in question. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner cannot be granted relief sought by him. Writ petition is therefore dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) January 20, 2011 MRR