Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bala Ramesh Babu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 March, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.6247 of 2020
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the notice issued by 4th respondent in Rc.No.B/38/2020 dated 19.02.2020 under Madras Act, 1095, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao1, consequently direct respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from land in an extent of Ac.4.39 cents in Sy.No.97C, Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.99A, Ac.2.08 cents in Sy.No.99B, Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.99C, Ac.2.78 cents in Sy.No.528A and Ac.0.69 cents in Sy.No.528C situated at Kona Uppalapadu village, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapur District.
2. It is the case of the petitioner from the beginning that he is in possession and enjoyment of land in an extent of Ac.4.39 cents in Sy.No.97C, Ac.2.19 cents in Sy.No.99A, Ac.2.08 cents in Sy.No.99B, Ac.3.92 cents in Sy.No.99C, Ac.2.78 cents in Sy.No.528A and Ac.0.69 cents in Sy.No.528C situated at Kona Uppalapadu village, Yadiki Mandal, Ananthapur District for the last three decades uninterruptedly, developed the subject land as green field land by spending huge amount from his hard earnings by digging three bore wells and cultivating the total extent by raising different seasonal crops. The petitioner planted 12000 banana trees, 2000 lemon trees, 200 mango trees, 375 black plum (Alla Neredu) trees, 100 coconut trees, 10 custard apple trees, 10 passion fruit trees, 10 karoda fruit trees, 10 drumstick trees and 1 1982 AIR (SC) 1081 2 10 neem trees. Apart from the above plants, petitioner is raising several flower plants along with musk melon etc. Thus, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land referred above.
3. While so, notice dated 19.02.2020 was issued to the petitioner calling upon his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but without issuing notice under Section 6 of A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the Act) and passing final order, Revenue Inspector, Yadiki Mandal informed to the villagers that the revenue authorities will evict the petitioner from the land forcibly, after passing final order for assigning the land to poor persons.
4. The action of respondents is contrary to judgment in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao (referred supra), since the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property and that too interference without passing any final order is an illegality, requested to issue direction as claimed by the petitioner.
5. During hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record written instructions dated 04.03.2020 contending that the petitioner entered into government land, raised commercial crops and making money out of it. As the land is required for assignment to landless poor under "Navaratnalu-Pedalandariki Illu" scheme, respondents proposed to take possession of the property, requested to dismiss the writ petition in limini.
3
6. Admittedly the land is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, the same is supported by the written instructions placed on record, more particularly, last line of first page and first line of second page of the instructions. Therefore, the alleged illegal or unauthorized occupation of the petitioner is admitted by the respondents and the petitioner also admitted that he is in possession of the property. Whether his occupation is illegal or unauthorized cannot be decided by this Court, at this stage, since the petitioner questioned the notice and action of respondents. Issue of notice under Section 7 of the Act is permissible, if the land is vested on the government by issuing Gazette notification under Section 58 (2) of A.P Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, since poramboke, gramakantam and other lands are deemed to have been vested on the Gram Panchayat, on its constitution, in terms of Section 53 of A.P Panchayat Raj Act, unless, any notification is issued in the Gazette under Section 58 (2) of A.P Panchayat Raj Act, divesting the land from Gram Panchayat and vesting on the government, issue of notice under Section 7 of the Act cannot be faulted. Even assuming for a moment that the land is gramakantam or poramboke within the village, no such notification is placed on record. Hence, the proposed action of respondents without issuing any notification under Section 58 (2) of A.P Panchayat Raj Act, as on the date of issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act is a serious illegality.
7. Yet, another contention of the petitioner is that when the petitioner is in settled possession, government has to approach the civil court for declaring their right and obtain an order. This 4 view is fortified by Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Prl. Secretary, Revenue and others v. Kamal Kishore Agarwal2 and the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao (referred supra). Therefore, respondents are directed to adhere to the directions issued in the above said judgments, approach civil court for declaration of title and ejectment of petitioner from the land. Hence, issue of notice without following guidelines issued by Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao (referred supra) and Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Prl. Secretary, Revenue and others v. Kamal Kishore Agarwal (referred supra) is a serious illegality. Hence, the impugned notice under Section 7 of the Act dated 19.02.2020 is liable to be set aside.
8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice in Rc.No.B/38/2020 dated 19.02.2020, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary, while directing the respondents to follow the guidelines issued by the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court referred above.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 17.03.2020 Rvk 2 (2018) AndhLD 274