Judgment · High Court

Order

Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Learned Advocate General for the respondents. At their request the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The proceedings under challenge in this Writ Petition is the notice issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, “the Act”) dated 21.11.2011 whereby the President of the petitioner association was called upon to vacate the subject land within one day from the date of service of the notice. The notice dated 21.11.2011 bears an endorsement, on the left of the form, of the Tahsildar dated 23.11.2011.

This Court, by order dated 25.11.2011, had directed status quo as on date to be maintained for a period of one week. Today the Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the Learned Advocate General, would state that pursuant to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, and on receipt of the petitioner’s objections thereto, an order was passed by the fourth respondent on 22.11.2011; and since Section 6 notice was issued even prior thereto, this Court may set aside the said notice leaving it open to the fourth respondent to issue proceedings, under Section 6 of the Act, afresh in accordance with law.

Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would, however, draw attention of this Court to the previous proceedings to submit that the respondents were hell- bent on evicting the petitioner from the subject land; the order said to have been passed on 22.11.2011 was in fact passed only on

24.11.2011, after the petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court; the very fact that the impugned order is initialled as 23.11.2011 would necessitate the conclusion that the Section 6 notice was issued either on the same day, or thereafter; and the date shown in the order passed, (pursuant to the petitioner’s reply) allegedly dated 22.11.2011, is an overwriting of the actual date which is 24.11.2011. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has been in possession ever since 1968; they have perfected their title through adverse possession; the summary proceedings under the Act are not available to the respondents where such serious disputes with regards title are in issue; the petitioner has ever since inception been in possession of the entire extent of land, presently in their occupation; and the remedy, if any, for the respondents is only to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject land. He would further contend that, from out of the Ac.30-00 of land which the fourth respondent seeks to evict the petitioner from, an extent of Ac.20-28 guntas has already been plotted; more than 100 houses have come up thereat; and it is these individual plot owners, and those who have constructed buildings on such plots, who are required to be put on notice under Section 7 of the Act, and give an opportunity of being heard. While these submissions put forth by the Learned Senior Counsel cannot be said to be without merit, it must also be borne in mind that, since the fourth respondent himself states that the impugned notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued even before an order was passed by him pursuant to the receipt of the petitioner’s objections under Section 7 of the Act, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine any of the contentions urged by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Suffice to hold that since the impugned proceedings under Section 6 of the Act dated 21.11.2011 is required to be set aside on the ground that it was not preceded by an order of the fourth respondent pursuant to the show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act dated 22.08.2011, all the other contentions need not be examined at this stage. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel, would submit that if liberty is accorded to the fourth respondent to pass an order afresh, he would again resort to a one day notice, and forcibly evict those who own the plots and those who have constructed houses thereon, without even giving them an opportunity to question the Section 6 proceedings before the appropriate forum. While a one day notice for eviction cannot be countenanced, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to dwell on this aspect any further as the Learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the Learned Advocate General, would fairly state that, even in case a notice is issued afresh under Section 6 of the Act, two weeks time would be given to the petitioner to vacate the subject land. Recording the said submissions of the Learned Government Pleader, the impugned proceedings under Section 6 of the Act dated

21.11.2011 is quashed. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J December 02, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.31193 OF 2011 MD December 02, 2011