R. Vijaya Lakshmi vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Others

Ravi Cheemalapaati, J

The grievance of thee petitioner is issuance of proceedings by the 4th respondent, Tahsildar vide Roc.A/150/2020 dated 12.04.2021 diirecting the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer to remove compound wall on the ground that it has been constructed in Swarnamukhi River and consequential attempts of the said authorities to demolish the comppound wall.

Heard Sri Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader.

Sri Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that any notice containing the mandate of demolition must necessarily be preceded with a show cause notice calling for explanation of the person affected so as to enable him to put forth his/her case through explanation. However, the Tahsildar, without issuing any prior notice and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing, had issued the impugned notice directing the revenue officials to demolish the compound wall in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and now the revenue officials are attempting to carry out the mandate contained in the impugned proceedings and since infringement of sacred principle of natural justice is very much glaring on the face, the proceedings impugned in this writ petition is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader justified issuance of impugned proceedings contending that the petitioner had constructed the building in the buffer Zone of the river at a distance of 6.00 Mts. from left side edge of Swarnamukhi River and by encroaching into the River had constructed compound wall, which came to light during inspection of Irrigation department officials and thereby on the communication made by the Irrigation authorities, the Tahsildar had issued the impugned proceedings directing the concerned revenue officials to remove the compound wall. There is neither illegality nor procedural impropriety in issuing the proceedings and this writ petition being meritless is liable to be dismissed.

Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. The proceedings impugned in this writ petition states that upon receipt of a complaint made by an individual before Lokayukta for removal of unauthorized encroachments at Swarnamukhi river, the Mandal Surveyor had conducted a physical survey in the presence of Irrigation authorities and during that survey it had been found that the petitioner had constructed the compound wall by encroaching into Swarnamukhi River and thereupon, the impugned proceedings came to be issued directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Tirupati Rural and the Village Revenue Officer, Tiruchanur for removal of the compound wall.

The impugned proceeding nowhere states issuance of any notice to the petitioner nor his presence at the time of the alleged survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor. Equally, it does not also state about issuance of any prior notice to the petitioner seeking her explanation by putting her on notice the observations made out in the physical survey conducted by the authorities regarding encroachment of Swarnamukhi river for construction of the subject compound wall.

Without issuing any notice calling for explanation of the petitioner regarding the alleged encroachment of river for construction of compound wall, straight away issuing the impugned proceeding giving a direction to the revenue officials for demolition is violative of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the said proceeding is liable to be set aside.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar vide Roc.A/150/2020, dated 12.04.2021. This order does not in any way preclude the authorities from taking steps by following the due procedure contemplated under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.