IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9283 of 2008 Between: Annepu Himavantha Rao & another … Petitioners AND The Tahsildar, Nandiwada mandal, Krishna District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.P. Chandramouli Counsel for respondent No.2: GP for Irrigation This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9283 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare proceedings dated 05.11.2007 and consequential notices issued by respondent No.1 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, ‘the Act’), as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Heard Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent No.2. The petitioners are in occupation of an extent of Ac.0.01 cent each of cannel bund poramboke. Petitioner No.1 filed O.S.No.537 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gudiwada when newly elected Sarpanch and her husband tried to dismantle his house and obtained order of injunction on 29.08.2006 in I.A.No.1738 of 2006. He also claimed to have lodged a complaint to the police on 01.09.2006 when his possession was sought to be interfered with. When the Grampanchayat sought to evict the petitioners, they filed WP.No.18813 of 2006 before this Court, which granted an interim order on 10.11.2006 and eventually the said writ petition was disposed of on 09.08.2007 by holding that the land is not vested in the Grampanchayat. The petitioners alleged that in order to evict them, the persons, who are opposed to them, moved the Irrigation department and as a result, respondent No.2 addressed letter dated 05.11.2007 to the Mandal Revenue Officer to remove the alleged encroachments for two reasons, namely, that the land is required for improvement of cannal and that the Grampanchayat required the said site for formation of a bridge. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the hearing, submitted that the first reason, namely, that the land is required for improvement of cannal is false since there are 150 houses on the cannal bund and by removing the petitioners alone, the respondents cannot improve the canal bund. As regards the second reason, contends the learned counsel, there are three existing bridges on either side of the petitioners’ house and as per G.O.Ms.No.331, Irrigation and Power (Projects Wing) Department, dated 14.09.1980, no new bridge shall be constructed within a distance of two kilometers. The learned counsel stated that despite these facts, respondent No.1 issued the impugned notice under Section 7 of the Act. He invited my attention to the writing in manuscript by way of addition to the standard form of the notice wherein the petitioners are required to vacate the land within 15 days. He submitted that the petitioners filed their objections in response to the impugned notice on 18.04.2008 and in view of the direction given by respondent No.1 in the impugned notice to vacate the site in dispute within 15 days, there is an imminent threat of their dispossession despite the fact that respondent No.1 has not so far passed a final order under Section 6 of the Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and perused the record, I am of the view that the requirement made in the notice given by respondent No.1 to the petitioners to vacate within 15 days is contrary to the very purpose of issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act. This act of respondent No.1 shows his pre-conceived mind to evict the petitioners. The impugned notice to the extent it contains the said direction cannot be sustained. Until respondent No.1 considers the objections of the petitioners filed in response to the impugned notice and passes a reasoned order under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the site in question. In the event respondent No.1 passes an order rejecting the objections of the petitioners, they shall not be evicted at least for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such an order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.12262 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.04.2008 Note:- Issue operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o. ES