THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.29024 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). At their request the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to quash the order of the Joint Collector, Krishna, (first respondent) dated 26.09.2011, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada (second respondent) dated 03.04.2010 for resumption of an extent of Ac.4.53 cents in R.S.Nos.91 and 92 of Unikili Village, Mandavilli Mandal, Krishna District, to the extent the second respondent and the Tahsildar, Mandavalli (third respondent) were directed to take steps for eviction of the petitioner. A consequential direction is sought to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession. By way of an amendment the notice issued, under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act), is questioned on the ground that the order ex facie showed that it was issued at the dictates of the first respondent and, as such, the very proceedings under the Act, including the requirement of affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, was a mere ritual and an empty formality. In the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 the first respondent, while confirming the order of the second respondent dated 03.04.2010 and dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner, observed that the petitioner was in no way connected with the lands in R.S.Nos.91 and 92 total admeasuring Ac.4.53 cents; as per the survey on ground the lands in R.S.Nos.88/1, 2, 3 and 4, 90/1 and 2 (Table-I) in Unikili Village, Mandavilli Mandal, Krishna District, (which are under the actual enjoyment of the petitioner), were classified as anadeenam; the government was the absolute owner; and the petitioner had no right over the lands covered in Table-II. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada (second respondent) and the Tahsildar, Mandavalli (third respondent) were directed to take immediate steps under the Act for eviction of encroachments. Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not press for an adjudication on the validity of the order of the first respondent dated 29.06.2011 to the extent he affirmed the order of the second respondent. Learned Counsel would submit that the grievance of the petitioner is with regards the direction issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take steps for eviction of the petitioner. According to the Learned Counsel, in an appeal preferred by the petitioner, all that the first respondent could do was to dismiss the appeal, and not pass any orders regarding lands unconnected with the subject matter of the appeal; based on the directions of the first respondent, the third respondent had already initiated action by issuing a notice under Section 7 of the Act; and, as is evident from the notice itself, action was initiated at the behest of the first respondent. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, would submit that, while the order of the first respondent does relate to the lands which are not the subject matter of the appeal before him, all that the first respondent had done was to direct the respondents to take necessary action in accordance with law, and such administrative directions cannot be construed as a direction to the third respondent to evict the petitioner from the land in question. I am unable to agree. The first respondent has recorded a finding that the petitioner had no right over the subject land as these lands were government lands. Consequential action was directed to be taken for eviction of the petitioner. The notice, under Section 7 of the Act, also records that the first respondent had so directed. The impugned order of the first respondent dated 26.09.2011, to the limited extent he had gone beyond the scope of the appeal and had recorded a finding against the petitioner with regards lands unconnected with the appeal, is quashed. The impugned notice issued by the third respondent is also set aside. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the third respondent, if he is of the opinion that the lands in possession of the petitioner are government lands, to initiate action in accordance with law including the provisions of the Act for eviction of the petitioner from government lands. It is also made clear that, if any notice is issued by the third respondent afresh, it is always open to the petitioner to submit his objections thereto, and to produce documentary evidence to show that he is the owner of the subject lands, and that these lands are not government lands falling within the ambit of the provisions of the Act. Since the very issuance of the notice, under Section 7 of the Act, would show that the petitioner has been in possession of the subject lands, he shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with law, including the provisions of the Act. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:03.11.2011 Note:CC by 09.11.2011 bo usd