IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23509 of 2008 Between: Agraharam Krishnamma W/o.Govindappa, Kothigutta Colony Rayadurg,Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahasildar Rayadurg, Anantapur District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.D.GOWD Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 23509 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from her land admeasuring Ac.2.36 cents in Sy.No.295-1B and Ac.0.91 cents in Sy.No.295-3 of Rayadurg Village and Town, Anantapur District, without considering her explanation submitted under Section 6 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri S.D.Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the above mentioned lands in the year 1962. The order was passed on 16-12-1993 by which the said lands were resumed on the ground that the petitioner purchased assigned lands. The appeal ﬁled by the petitioner was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Dharmavaram, on 07-02-1994. The petitioner ﬁled O.S.No.173 of 2005 on the ﬁle of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, for permanent injunction, which also ended in dismissal. The petitioner received notice dated 25-08-2008 issued under Section 7 of the Act. She claimed that, in response to the said notice, she tried to submit her explanation and that the respondent refused to receive the same. The petitioner alleged that on 22-10-2008, the respondent made a press statement stating that they have taken possession of the land. The plea of the petitioner is that without receiving her explanation and without passing ﬁnal orders under Section 6 of the Act, the respondent cannot dispossess her. The facts narrated above show that the petitioner lost the litigation concerning the above mentioned lands. But she cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. Even if the petitioner is found to be in unauthorized possession of the land, the respondent is bound to scrupulously follow the procedure prescribed under the Act. At the hearing, Sri S.D.Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after ﬁling of the writ petition, the respondent received the explanation from the petitioner. If that be so, the respondent shall pass an order under Section 6 of the Act before taking any action to recover possession from the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the above observations. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.30633 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:30-10-2008 Note:Furnish copy by tomorrow Bo usd