HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24902 of 2010 Date 05.10.2010 Between: Kota Srinivas and others. ..... PETITIONER AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, E.G. District and others. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner :Sri S.M.Subhan Counsel for the Respondent : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24902 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the notice dated 16.09.2010 and the attempt of the respondents to dispossess the petitioners from an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.90 cents in Sy.No.1/1 of Gollapalem Village, Kajulur Mandal, East Godavari District. I have heard Sri S.M.Subhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The dispute pertains to the purported surplus land under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The petitioners claim that they have purchased the above extent of land from the declarant prior to the acceptance of declaration by the Land Reforms Tribunal and that the said land was not liable for inclusion in the surplus land of the declarant. When the petitioners were sought to be dispossessed, they have earlier filed W.P.No.15465 of 2001 and batch which was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to issue notice to the petitioners for filing objections. According to the petitioners, after issuance of such notice by the respondents, objections were filed by them on 29.12.2003 and that no order has been passed so far. The grievance of the petitioners is that on 16.09.2010, respondent No.2 has issued a notice calling upon the petitioners to appear before him on 21.09.2010 along with pattadar pass books and title deeds in order to determine the surplus land. The petitioners have questioned this notice. At the hearing Sri S.M.Subhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, stated that in pursuance of the impugned notice, his clients have appeared before respondent No.2 and produced documentary evidence but no orders have been passed so far and that the respondents are threatening to dispossess them. In the light of the facts noted above, respondent No.2 is required to consider the petitioners’ claim for exclusion of the land purchased by them from the surplus holding of the declarant. After examining the petitioners’ claim, respondent No.2 needs to pass an appropriate order. Till then, he cannot dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.31846 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05.10.2010 usd