Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kadiyala Sudershan And Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By ... on 29 July, 2013
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.19502 of 2013
Dated:29-07-2013
Kadiyala Sudershan and others...Petitioners
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:Sri Bhaskara Rao Bandarupalli
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (TA)
<Gist:
>Head note:
?Cases referred:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.19502 of 2013
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notices bearing Rc.No.A/642/2012, dated 10.01.2013, of respondent No.4.
I have heard Sri Bhaskara Rao Bandarupalli, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA) appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners claim to be in possession of Ac.1.20 cents in Survey No.125/84, Ac.1.22 cents in Survey No.125/51 and Acs.3.22 cents in Survey No.125/86 respectively of Mangapeta Village and Mandal. Respondent No.4 issued notice in Appendix - XXXII-A of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short 'the Act'), wherein petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were asked to vacate the land in Survey No.125/1 and petitioner No.2, the land in Survey No.107/1. These notices have been questioned by the petitioners mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that no order containing reasons was passed under Section 6 of the Act and (2) that the petitioners are not in possession of the lands in the above-mentioned two survey numbers which are referred in the impugned notices.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA), on instructions, submitted that even though the petitioners claim to be in possession of Survey Nos.125/84, 125/51 and 125/86, they are actually in possession of the lands in Survey Nos.125/1 and 107/1 and that therefore the impugned notices have been issued to them. She further stated that except Form
- XXXII-A notice, no separate order has been passed by respondent No.4.
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. 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. From the scheme of the Act, I am of the opinion that the notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality.
Having regard to the fact that respondent No.4 has not passed a separate reasoned order, the impugned notices cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. Respondent No.4 shall consider the claims of the petitioners that they are not in occupation of the lands in Survey Nos.125/1 and 107/1 and pass a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.23866 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th July, 2013