THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.7417 of 2001 Dated: 23.01.2007 Between: M/s Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited, Garividi, Vizianagaram District, represented by its Managing Director through G.P.A.Holder Sri T.Kamalakara Rao. .... PETITIONER AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponduru Mandal, Srikakulam District and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.7417 of 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to invoke the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “the Act”), without considering the material produced by the petitioner company pursuant to the notice dated 11.01.2001, and passing the impugned order dated 31.03.2001 under Section 6 of the Act mechanically as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the land in Sy.Nos.83-15 and 85 admeasuring Acs.16.66 cents situated at Krishnapuram village of Ponduru Mandal in Srikakulam District. It is the case of the petitioner that it purchased the land admeasuring Acs.18.10 cents in Sy.Nos.83 and 85 in Krishnapuram Village in Ponduru Mandal under a registered sale deed dated 07.09.1961 from one M.V.Narasinga Rao for valuable consideration, and since then it has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Thereafter, the mining department, by proceedings dated 26.07.1964, granted lease for a period of twenty years for carrying on mining operations in the land of the petitioner. Thereafter, apart from carrying on mining operations, he had raised plantation. While so, the petitioner approached the respondents for grant of pattadar passbook and title deed for the said land after expiry of mining lease. At that stage the respondent issued a notice dated 04.02.1978 stating that he has noticed that the petitioner raised cashew crops in an extent of Acs.9.00 in Sy.No.83-15 and Acs.7.66 cents in Sy.No.85, which is government poramboke as per the revenue records and the petitioner was asked to submit documentary evidence in respondent of the said land. On receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 19.12.1998, the respondents dropped the proceedings. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that on 11.01.2001 the first respondent issued a notice to it under Section 7 of the Act, to which it submitted reply on 19.01.2001. However, without considering the same and without looking into the material submitted by the petitioner, the respondent mechanically passed a final order, dated 31.03.2001, directing eviction of the petitioner from the land in question. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court issued rule nisi in this writ petition on 18.04.2001 and directed the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to the possession existing as on that day. Even though more than seven years have elapsed, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter- affidavit nor any petition is filed to vacate the said interim order. However, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondents is very cryptic. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. A perusal of the order dated 31.03.2001 passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponduru, impugned in the writ petition, would disclose that that the same is very cryptic, in that it merely refers to the Section 7 notice issued to the petitioner, and though the petitioner is said to have submitted his reply thereto, there is neither any reference to the reply submitted by the petitioner nor any of the objections taken by the petitioner are dealt with. Since the impugned order is very cryptic and has been passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, without applying his mind, and without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, I am of the considered opinion that the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the final order dated 31.03.2001 passed by the first respondent, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ponduru, is set aside. However, it is made clear that if the respondents choose to initiate proceedings under the Act against the petitioner, they are at liberty to do so, after issuing fresh notice to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its case. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.01.2008 sh