IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.23048 of 2014 BETWEEN A. Lakshmaiah.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. AMANCHERLA SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner was given a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 02.08.2014 and simultaneously with the said notice, Section 6 notice was also issued on 04.08.2014 directing eviction of the petitioner.
2. The said notices are questioned in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner had no opportunity to submit explanation and straightaway eviction order is passed within two days of Section 7 notice. The affidavit of the petitioner also states that both the said notices are received by the petitioner on 05.08.2014 simultaneously. Petitioner also places reliance upon earlier orders of this Court in WP.No.17733 of 2014 dated 07.07.2014 and the impugned notices, according to him, are contrary to the liberty granted by this Court in the said writ petition to respondents 3 and 4 therein. Petitioner also raised a contention that the notices purport to be notices issued under the Madras Act 3 of 1905 and that they are not issued under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act.
3. The last of the contentions, referred to above, is apparently without substance inasmuch as the Land Encroachment Act, which was in force in the Madras State then, was adopted in the State of Andhra Pradesh when it was formed. Even otherwise only the proforma notice refer to Madras Act 1905 and it is, apparently, a notice issued under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. The first contention, however, is sustainable inasmuch as Section 7 and Section 6 notices cannot be served simultaneously without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file his explanation.
4. Respondent No.4, who has issued Section 7 notice, must, therefore, wait for the petitioner to file his explanation to the said notice, consider the same and then pass appropriate reasoned order under Section 6 of the Act. In view of that, Section 6 notice dated 04.08.2014, impugned herein, is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the fourth respondent for consideration from the stage of show cause notice under Section 7 of the Act. Petitioner is permitted to file his explanation within a period of two (2) weeks from today. Respondent No.4 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders under Section 6 of the Act by a reasoned order.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 12, 2014
Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 14.08.2014. (B/o) DSK