Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kaibadi Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 3 February, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.2172 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of 3rd respondent in issuing impugned Notice, dt.24-01-2020 for demolition of petitioner's RCC building situated in Sy.No.715/4 to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents at Srikakulam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District in unjust manner, without jurisdiction and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside the impugned notice and direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over subject property and not to demolish the said RCC building.
The petitioner contended that the property in dispute i.e., RCC building situated in Sy.No.715/4 for an extent of Ac.0.03 cents at Srikakulam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed vide document No.5688 of 2017, dt.15-09-201 for valid consideration and he raised two storied building in the same land. While the matter stood thus, due to changed circumstances, particularly, due to change of political party in power in the State, some evil forces put their eyesore over the said property and the petitioner approached the Civil Court and filed O.S.No.433 of 2019 seeking permanent injunction against the 3rd respondent and the Executive Officer, Srikakulam Gram Panchayat. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a notice under Section 7 of Madras Act No.3 of 1905 with false allegations and trying to demolish the said RCC building. Therefore, the action of 3rd respondent is questioned in this Writ Petition and requested to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and requested to issue a direction.
2
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
As seen from the record, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 7 of Madras Act No.3 of 1905, claiming that the subject building was constructed on the 'government land' and it is well settled law that against a show cause notice, the Writ Petition cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.8609 of 2019. Therefore on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable against the show cause notice, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In any view of the matter, the apprehension of this petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is attempting to demolish the petitioner's RCC building situated in Sy.No.715/4 to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents at Srikakulam Village, Gara Mandal, Srikakulam District, without following due process of law. In view of the specific apprehension of this petitioner, the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent herein is directed not to take any steps till passing final order under Rule 3 read with Rule 6 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 03-02-2020 IS 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.2172 OF 2020 Date: 03-02-2020 IS