THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.17784 OF 2011 ORDER: The proceedings, under challenge in this Writ Petition, is the notice issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (“the Act” for short), calling upon petitioners 1 and 2 to show cause why they should not be evicted from unauthorised occupation of Ac.00.12 cts and Ac.0.05 cts of land respectively in Sy. No.333/2 of Arthamuru Village, Mandapet, East Godavari District as the land was classified as “cemetery”, in the Revenue Records. A reply is said to have been filed thereto by the petitioners through their Counsel. While matters stood thus, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that the said notice was issued without measuring the land, and without demarcating the boundaries. Sri M.V. Pavan Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner would state that, while the petitioner put forth these contentions in their reply, a survey was not conducted, to demarcate the land. It is well settled that, unless the High Court is satisfied that the show-cause notice is non-est, Writ Petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking, and as a matter of routine, and the petitioner should, invariably, be directed to respond to the show-cause notice and take all stands, highlighted in the Writ Petition, therein. (Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse[1]; Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy[2]; Saravani Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai[3]; M/s Vasavi Business Combines v. Commissioner of Customs[4]; M/s Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd v. Commercial (CT), (Audit), Hyderabad[5]; and Shakti Met Dor Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise[6].) If the petitioners have filed their objections to the notice under Section 7, I have no reason to doubt that the respondent would consider those objections in accordance with law, and pass orders under Section 6 of the Act before taking any further action in the matter. The Writ Petition as filed is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. As the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, the implead petition in W.P.M.P. No.27170 of 2011 is also dismissed. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 16.11.2011 Note: Issue copy in one week. B/o MRKR [1] (2004) 3 SCC 440 [2] (2007)9 SCC 286 [3] 2010(1) ALD 40 (DB) [4] Judgment of A.P.H.C. D.B in W.P.No.16170 of 2010 dated 28.7.2010 [5] Judgment of A.P.H.C.D.B. in W.P.No.18725 of 2010 dated 27.8.2010 [6] Judgment of A.P.H.C. D.B. in W.P. No.11855 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010