THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13288 of 2008 ORDER: The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 28.03.2005, through which an extent of Acs.9.16 cents of land in survey No.1124/3 of Chinnachowk Village, Kadapa District, was alienated in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value of Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is stated that the possession of the land was delivered on 25.07.2005 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa, the 7th respondent, through a panchanama. The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Collector, Kadapa, the 3rd respondent, issued a notice, dated 02.06.2008, indicating that the alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled and that the alternative land would be allotted. It is pleaded that once the land was alienated on payment of market value and possession was delivered, the rights of the petitioner cannot be interfered with. It is also urged that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction or competence to issue the impugned notice. On behalf of the 4th respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the very land in question was handed over to the 4th respondent for development and for the past more than a decade, more than 800 trees were grown by incurring expenditure of Rs.8.6/- lakhs. It is also stated that the possession is still with the 4th respondent and efforts are on for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the petitioner. Heard Sri C.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri C.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. It is a matter of record that the Government alienated Acs.9.16 cents of land through its orders in G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 28.03.2005 and the possession is already said to have been delivered, vide panchanama, dated 25.07.2005. Even assuming that there exists any valid basis for cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the petitioner, it is only the Government, that can pass necessary orders. As long as G.O.Ms.No.379, dated 28.03.2005, subsists, the 3rd respondent cannot interfere with the rights of the petitioner. On the short ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the 3rd respondent, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is, however, left open to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders, duly issuing notice to the petitioner. To protect the interests of the parties, it is directed that the petitioner shall not cut any trees that exist in the land, without any specific permission of the Forest Department. The petitioner shall also not make any construction over the land for a period of two months from today. The respondents, however, shall not interfere with the activities of teaching and learning being undertaken by the petitioner over the land. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:07.04.2009. GJ