THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.161 of 2008 Dated:26.08.2010 Between: P.Srinivasulu Naidu .. Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Vijrakarur Mandal, Vajrakarur, Anantapur District .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.161 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner claims that his ancestors are owners of the land in Survey No.130 of Pandikunta Village. The land is to a considerable extent of Acs.10.48 cents. When the villagers complained that the petitioner occupied the land, the Tahsildar – respondent herein, issued a notice dated 06.12.2007 requiring the petitioner to submit all necessary documents in proof of title to his land known as Peddammakota. The petitioner alleges that he submitted all the necessary documents, but as the respondent was interfering with his possession, he filed W.P.No.17887 of 2003 seeking a writ of mandamus assailing the action of the respondent. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition on 08.01.2004. Thereafter, another notice dated 28.12.2007 was issued to the petitioner again, asking him to produce necessary documents. The counsel for petitioner submits that the issuance of notices is arbitrary, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17887 of 2003. While disposing of the earlier Writ Petition on 08.01.2004, this Court observed as under: It is to be noted that if the petitioner claims any right over the property, it is always open for him to place the relevant material before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vajrakarur, and he can also raise an objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer to issue the impugned notice. In the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to file his objections and material to prove his right and possession over the subject property within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On placing such material, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vajrakarur, shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted necessary documents and objections to the enquiry. There cannot be any doubt that only after such perusal of the documents, the respondent issued yet another notice on 06.12.2007. A perusal of the same would show that they are not satisfied with the evidence produced by the petitioner, hence, such notice was issued. When the petitioner did not produce any further evidence, another notice, which is impugned in the Writ Petition, is issued. There is nothing wrong in the Tahsildar conducting enquiry when the revenue records show that the land is classified as Village Site Poramboke (Grama Kanta). The petitioner disputes the title of the Government for which he has to file a suit. Further by asking the petitioner to produce documentary evidence, his rights, if any, are not being interfered with. The petitioner should participate in the enquiry. If it is found that the petitioner encroached into the Government land or grama kantam (Village site Poramboke) land, it shall be open to the respondent to evict him under the Andhra Pradesh Encroachment Act, 1905. The Writ Petition, with the above observations, is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J 26.08.2010 KH