Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Purama Peda Stayanarayana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 February, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.3071 of 2020
ORDER:
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents in Sy.No.54-2, Siripuram village, Kollipara Mandal, Guntur District, pending consideration of explanation dated 23.12.2019, without passing final order on the notice dated 12.12.2019 and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject matter of the land.
2. The petitioner is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the property, having purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-36 cents in Sy.No.54-2, Siripuram Village, Kollipara Mandal of Guntur District, under registered sale deed bearing document No.622/1995, dated 26.06.1995, registered with Sub-Registrar's office, Kollipara, for a valid sale consideration. Petitioner's vendor Rachapudi Bikshulu got the property by way of a gift settlement deed through his mother Rachapudi Raghavamma, who executed a gift deed bearing document No.45/1992, dated 05.12.1992. Rachapudi Raghavamma was in possession during her life time and thereafter, in pursuance of the gift given by Raghavamma, the vendors of petitioner have in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land, till execution of sale deed in 2 favour of petitioner in the year 1995. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property.
3. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent issued a notice dated, 12.12.2019 to petitioner under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905, calling upon to submit his explanation within 15 days as to why the petitioner should not be ejected from his property. The same was received by petitioner. On receipt of notice, an explanation dated 23.12.2019 was submitted by petitioner. But, no order has been passed till date by the 3rd respondent. However, the respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without passing any order and such act of the respondents is illegal and requested to direct them not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property pending consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner.
4. During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition, whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, agreed to pass appropriate order on the explanation given by petitioner to the show-cause notice, dated 12.12.2019.
5. In view of submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, the truth or otherwise in those allegations made by the petitioner need not be adjudicated by this Court. Hence, I find it is a fit case to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject 3 property till passing appropriate order under the provisions of A.P.land Encroachment Act, 1905.
6. Recording submission of the learned Assistant Government for Revenue, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner or interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, without passing any final order on the explanation given by petitioner to show-cause notice dated 12.12.2019.
7. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 11.02.2020 KA 4