IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25069 of 2004 Between: Challa Ravindraiah S/o Chenchu Ramaiah R/o Polipadu Village, OZilli Mandal Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Panchayat Secreatry, Benagiripalem Gram Panchayat, Ozilli Mandal, Nellore District 2 Mandal Revenue Officer Ozilli, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.S.CHANDRESH Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.DANTU SRINIVAS Counsel for Respondent No.2: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to set aside notices, dated 22.09.2004 and 16.12.2004 of respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. When the writ petition was heard on 14.07.2008, Sri M.S.Chandresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice, dated 22.09.2004 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) was without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel, respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 6 of the Act on 16.12.2004 after the notice issued by respondent No.1, who had no competence to issue such notice and hence, the said notice issued by respondent No.2 was also illegal. Having regard to the said submission, the respondents were directed to produce the record. At the hearing, today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue produced the record, which reveals that after respondent No.1 issued notice on 22.09.2004, a fresh notice was issued on 24.11.2004 by respondent No.2, who, admittedly, has jurisdiction to issue such a notice under Section 7 of the Act. The said notice contains the thumb impression of the petitioner evidencing its receipt on 26.11.2004. In view of this fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the above- mentioned contention raised by him during the hearing, on the earlier occasion, is no longer available to the petitioner. Inasmuch as the notice issued by respondent No.2 under Section 6 of the Act is preceded by a valid notice under Section 7 of the Act, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Act, if he is so advised. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 17.01.2005 is vacated and WPMP.No.32780 of 2004 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd JULY, 2008. kvni