Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sro Moravaneni Mastan Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 May, 2025

APHC010245132025
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI                  [3329]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                                 PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 12854/2025

Between:

Sro Moravaneni Mastan Naidu and Others                ...PETITIONER(S)

                                  AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others               ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

  1. RAMESH BABU TALLURI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

  1. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:
                                                2
                                                                                              NV, J
                                                                              W.P.NO.12854 OF 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                          WRIT PETITION NO: 12854/2025

ORDER:

-

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

" ... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing illegal eviction notice vide Proceedings R.C.B.44/2025 dated 22.02.2025 issued under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 pertaining to the lands of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.2-50 cents and Ac.2-50 cents in Survey No.67-P, Inugunta Village, Ozili Mandal, Tirupati District (earlier SPSR Nellore District) as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires of the provisions of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without jurisdiction, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (f) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners lands admeasuring Ac.2-50 cents and Ac.2-50 cents in Survey No.67-P, Inugunta Village, Ozili Mandal, Tirupati District, Earlier SPSR Nellore District in pursuance of illegal eviction notices vide R.C.B.44/2025 dated 22.02.2025 issued under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and to pass..."(in verbatim)

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

3. The claim of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.2-50 cents each in Sy.No.67-P, Inugunta Village, Ozili Mandal, Tirupati District(SPSR Nellore District) and the said land was assigned to them through a D-Form Patta (Darkhast) in 1979 by the competent authority under the A.P Land Grant Rules, 1969, since then 3 NV, J W.P.NO.12854 OF 2025 they have been in continuous uninterrupted and peaceful possession of the subject land. While the matter stood thus, a notice dated 22.02.2025 was issued under Section 7 of Madras Act 03 of 1905 (for short "the Act") to the petitioners.

4. The main contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are in long possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioners cannot be dispossessed by exercising power under Section 7 of the Madras Act. When the petitioners are in settled possession of the property, the remedy open to the respondents is to approach the Civil Court in view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in "Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao1". Instead of approaching the Civil Court to establish the title by respondent No.4, he issued notice under Section 7 of the Madras Act, invoking summary procedure to evict the petitioners from the land, requested to allow the writ petition.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that a notice dated 22.02.2025 was issued under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905, the said initiation of proceedings under Madras Act is without jurisdiction and requested to pass appropriate orders.

6. In fact, the A.P.Land Encroachment Act is in force, but instead of following the procedure contemplated under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, but a notice was issued under the Madras Act 03 of 1905, which is not 1 AIR 1982 SC 1081 4 NV, J W.P.NO.12854 OF 2025 applicable within the territory of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, a notice under Madras Act is without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced in view of the new enactment of A.P.Land Encroachment Act.

7. On perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that no specific date and time is fixed for submitting explanation in terms of Section 7 of the Madras Encroachment Act, hence, notice is incomplete. On this ground also the petition is liable to be allowed by setting aside the notice dated 22.02.2025.

8. However, when the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, it is the obligation of the State to approach the competent Civil Court and obtain relief for eviction of the petitioners or removal of objectionable encroachments. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in "Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao" (referred supra). In the said judgment, the Apex Court candidly held that the Government, in summary proceedings, cannot unilaterally decide its own title over the property, and their remedy is only to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of title.

9. If the said principle is applied to the present facts of the case, remedy open to respondent No.4 is to approach the competent Civil Court to establish the title and for recovery of the possession. Hence, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in "Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao" (referred supra). Therefore, the petitioners cannot be dispossessed, except by following 5 NV, J W.P.NO.12854 OF 2025 the law laid down by the Apex Court in "Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao" (referred supra) and "Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.2"

10. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:08.05.2025 LSP 2 2004 (1) SCC 769 6 NV, J W.P.NO.12854 OF 2025 192 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12854/2025 Date:08.05.2025 LSP