Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
I. Chandra Rao And Others vs Executive Officer, Sree Seetharama ... on 20 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(5)ALD109, 1999(3)ALT267
Author: A.S. Bhate
Bench: A.S. Bhate
ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, C.J
1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Devasthanam states that the similar direction as were issued in WP No.3596 of 1998 be issued in this appeal also. The directions issued in WP No.3596 of 1998 are to the following effect:
"I am of the opinion that first respondent cannot take steps for demolition of the shops by merely giving a notice. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is open to the first respondent to take appropriate proceedings for eviction of the petitioner, according to law".
2. Instead of taking appropriate proceedings for eviction of the appellants in terms of the directions above, the first respondent merely issued a notice of eviction to the appllants. We fail to comprehend why the respondent wants that the similar directions as were issued in W.P.3596/98 be issued in this appeal also having once failed to comply with the said directions issued as far back as 1998. Admittedly, the appellants are encroachers. Nothing has been shown to us as to whether the first respondent has taken any appropriate steps to redeem the land from the encroachers. Without expressing any opinion, we may observe that it appears, the judicial process, in the present case is being misused by the authorities of the respondents for ulterior considerations of depriving the temple of its valuable land by using the veil of the judicial orders notwithstanding the fact that the appellants are encroachers. The respondent-authorities till to-day have not woken up. Almost 11 years have gone by to take appropriate proceedings against the appellants to secure back the lands of the temple from the encroachers. Desperate arguments have been advanced that the land was once vacated and the appellants have reoccupied it. Nothing has been shown as to how, when and by what process possession of the land was taken back and to whom possession was delivered. A rather adamant stand is taken by the appellants that the land does not vest in the temple administration but it vests in the Government. This was the self-same stand of the appellants even in the earlier petition WP No.3596 of 1998, which has been repeated in the present appeal even to-day. Although, it has specifically been brought to the notice of the authorities of the respondent that the appellants arc challenging the very title of the temple itself, yet no appropriate steps have been taken by the authorities against the appellants to protect the lands from their encroachment.
3. Thus, in the totality of the circumstances, the finding of the learned single Judge, especially in view of the earlier decision in W.P. No.3596/98, to the effect that issuance of notice to the encroachers for vacating the land and to take possession of the same in the due process of law by itself may not be sufficient, cannot be sustained. The respondents are bound by the earlier judgment made in W.P.3596/98 deciding the self-same subject matter finally inter se the self-same parties which constitutes res judicata. The respondent authorities are bound to take appropriate steps to dispossess the appellants in accordance with law in terms of the judgment in W.P.No.3596/98. The repondents cannot take the law in their own hands. It is well settled that in our civilised society even a trespasser will have the protection of law and he will have to be dispossessed from the land by due process of law. The respondents cannot be allowed to punish the encroachers in their fanciful way. Be that as it is, the observations of the learned single Judge made in this context cannot be sustained in view of the observations made by us above. Consequently the impugned order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The respondent will be at liberty to take possession of the land in dispute by taking appropriate proceedings for the eviction of the appellants in accordance with law.
4. In the totality of the circumstances and our apprehension of the respondent being mixed-up, the higher authorities in the hierarchy are directed to look into the matter and take appropriate steps against the delinquent as well as the encroachers in accordance with law within two months from today. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.