JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S Somayajulu, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus with the following prayer: "To issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in passing the notice/order vide Roc.No.E2/e2161/2015 dated 22.05.2016 directing the petitioner to surrender the physical possession of the land lawfully purchased by the petitioner from their vendor Sunkaranam Meenarao @ baba in RS.No.150/2 for an extent of Ac. 2.20 cts, 150/3 for an extent of Ac.0.20 cts, 152/1 for an extent of Ac. 2.42 and in RS.No.153 for an extent of Ac.0.48 cts for a total extent of Ac.5.30 cts of Vadapalli Village Kowur Mandal West Godavari District as illegal arbitrary and abuse of the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act 1974, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India 2. This Court has heard Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. This case was heard along with WP.No.17301 of 2016 wherein the same question has arisen. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is the purchaser of the property in the year 2013 for valid sale consideration. Her vendor got the property through a registered Will, executed in his favour. The State is of the opinion that by virtue of principle of escheat, the land is vested in the State. 4. Even in this case, a notice dated 22.05.2016 was issued. In W.P.No.17301 of 2016, this Court came to the conclusion that the action taken by the State in issuing the notice and demanding vacant possession is not correct and is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act'). A detailed order has been passed in WP.No.17301 of 2016. Since the petitioner in this case is also claiming title through the very same vendor, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to the relief as prayed for. 5. A detailed order has been passed in WP.No.17301 of 2016. Since the petitioner in this case is also claiming title through the very same vendor, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to the relief as prayed for. 5. Considering the submissions made, the documents filed, the provisions of the Act and the admissions made in the counter that the State will take steps to follow the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to a relief as prayed for. 6. Hence, there shall be an order holding that the notice dated 22.05.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent is not valid. It is held that the 3rd respondent cannot demand possession of the property and can only take possession of the property by following the procedure stipulated under Section 8 of the Act. There shall be an order restraining the respondents from evicting the petitioners from the property till an appropriate order is obtained by the State for delivery of possession as per the Act. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is dispose of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.