IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9048 of 2000 Between: Mohd Miskin Ali, S/o. Mohd. Yasin Ali, (Son of late Sharullah), Both are Resi Narasapur, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District, 3 The District Collector, Sangareddy, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 15.05.2000 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have perused the record and heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he is in possession of land admeasuring 242 sq.yards in Survey No.58/1 situated at Narsapur Village and Mandal, Medak district, having purchased the same through registered sale deed, dated 11.03.1993 from one A.S.Mani Ayer, Son of Seshadri. He further averred that his vendor purchased the said land through document No.398 of 1970 from the original owner. He assailed the impugned proceedings mainly on two grounds, namely, since the land in question, which is a private property, is owned by the petitioner, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Act and that the impugned proceedings are not preceded by any notice under Section 7 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia averred that the land admeasuring Acs.3.06 cents in Survey No.58 of Narsapur Village, of which the land in question forms part, is a Government poramboke and that before issuing the impugned proceedings, a notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued in the name of the proprietor of Hamsa Polyclinic, who was in occupation of the property and as the said notice was refused to be received, the same was affixed on the building premises in the presence of panchas on 15.03.2000. It is further averred that the petitioner is one of the applicants seeking regularisation of the Government land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 (Ass.I) Department, dated 20.10.1995 and that as he was found ineligible for regularisation as the land was being put to commercial use, his application for regularisation of Government land was rejected before initiating proceedings under the Act. No reply affidavit is filed. Though the averment relating to service of notice is somewhat ambiguous, the fact remains that the petitioner had himself applied for regularisation of his unauthorized possession. This fact clearly proves beyond any doubt that he is in occupation of the Government land. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings issued under Section 6 of the Act. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings, he is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 29.09.2000 is vacated and WPMP.No.11633 of 2000 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th JULY, 2008. kvni