Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the above facts, further submit that based on Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) entries, the 6th respondent claims that part of the subject plots i.e., an extent of 38 sq. yards, as Government Lands. He contends that TSLR entries cannot be relied upon to trace title and in support of this contention, he relied on the judgments of learned Single Judge of this court reported in SYED HAFEEZ v. GOVT. OF A.P.1 and G.SATYANARAYANA v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH2 . He submits that in W.P.No.28368 of 2018, this court passed interim order dated 14.08.2018 directing that any action sought to be initiated, shall be in accordance with law. But the 6th respondent – Tahsildar, in violation of the said order and without giving opportunity to the petitioner, straight away issued the impugned notice, declaring that the part of the subject land as Government land and that the construction undertaken by the petitioner, which was after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation, as ‘illegal’ and asked the petitioner to stop construction. He submits that petitioner is not making any construction in the Government land and that the impugned notice, which is in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. He submits that petitioner has filed representation dated 09.10.2018, but the respondent No.6 has not taken any action and the petitioner apprehends that respondent No.6 with the assistance of 7th respondent – Station House Officer, may demolish the structures without opportunity to the petitioner.
