JUDGMENT Subba Reddy Satti, J. - This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: 'to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Eviction Orders in Roc.No.1076/2022 (DT), dt.29.12.2022 issued under Section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905 and its preceding Notice dt.17.12.2022 issued under Section 7 thereof, issued by 4th respondent, in respect of petitioner house and site property admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents out of Ac.5.78 cents in Sy.No.539 of Jagannadhapuram Village in Tadepalligudem Mandal of West Godavari District, without considering her objections/explanation dt.21.12.2022, as illegal, irregular, arbitrarily, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner possession and enjoyment over her said house and site property..'. 2. Petitioner filed the above writ petition impugning the proceedings vide Roc.No.1076/2022 (DT), dt.29.12.2022 issued by the 4th respondent. Notice issued under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh land Encroachment Act, 3 of 1905 was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted explanation on 21.12.2022. An order under Section 6 of Madras Act, 1905 was passed by the 4th respondent on 29.12.2022. 3. According to the petitioner, the petitioner got the subject property by virtue of Registered Gift deed dated 12.12.2018. Thereafter, she constructed RCC building in the scheduled property. Petitioner asserted in the affidavit that her father and forefather has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property for the last 50 years and as such, the provisions of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 do not apply. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. In Kadiyala Sudershan and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2013 (5) ALD 212 learned single judge of composite high court observed as follows: 'A person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the land. After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed under Section 6 of the Act. The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the land. After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed under Section 6 of the Act. If the competent authority is satisfied that the person in possession of the land is liable to the evicted, he has to issue a notice in the prescribed form. Though the provisions of Section 6 of the Act do not in express terms enjoin on the competent authority to pass a speaking order, the very fact that Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre- supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against him. Further, an appeal under Section 10 of the Act is envisaged by the Act. Unless the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal...' As indicated supra, the case of the petitioner is, inspite of explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent passed order dated 29.12.2022 without considering the same. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the 4th respondent vide proceedings in Roc.No.1076/2022 (DT), dt.29.12.2022, was set aside. The 4th respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 21.12.2022, if necessary by providing personal hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, no coercive steps will be taken. 7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed.