AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent no.3 in passing eviction orders in Rc.No.1912/2023/A, dt.21.10.2023 under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 without considering his explanation is illegal, arbitrary, irregular besides violative of Article 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the same.
Sri Sriman, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the society purchased the subject property in the year 2001 and layout was approved by the VUDA. His vendor purchased the property in the year 2010 and the petitioner purchased the subject property by way of Registered Sale Deed on 16.08.2012. Respondent No.3, without there being any dispute, issued a notice under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 calling explanation from the petitioner and then passed Order without considering his explanation giving a week days’ time to vacate from the schedule property.
Learned counsel in support of their contention placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 134, wherein His Lordship observed at para No.10 which is extracted as under:
“The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. Maybe, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily.”
Respondent No.3 cannot pass such orders by summary enquiry without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner when there is a title dispute.
Sri Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that this subject property is kalava poramboke land, which cannot be assigned by the Government. Respondent No.3 followed the procedure as per law and conducted enquiry passed a detailed order.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties, since it is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the property in the year 2012, which was an approved layout by VUDA, let the respondents cannot take any coercive steps of evicting the petitioner from the subject schedule property, since the period of appeal is not expired as per Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Encroachment Land Act, 1905. The petitioner can file appeal before the District Collector within a period of sixty (60) days. Let the respondents shall not take any coercive steps till the expiry of the appeal period and when an appeal is preferred, there cannot be any coercive steps against the petitioner pending appeal before the appropriate authority.
With this observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.