IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR BETWEEN B.Vijaya Saradhi AND WRIT PETITION No. 33778 of 2014 ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner states that he and his grandmother are landless poor persons and that his grandmother purchased an extent of Ac.5-00 in survey No.434/2 of Takkolu Revenue Village in Sidhout Mandal of Kadapa District. It is stated that the said land was stated to be assigned to the vendor of the petitioner’s grandmother as D.K.T.Patta No.86/91 on 08.05.1992 and that his grandmother purchased the said land from the said vendor and has been in possession from 1968 onwards and paying taxes. It is further stated that due to the old age ailments of petitioner’s grandmother, he was given charge of all the agricultural activities and was looking after the same. Petitioner was issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”), dated 24.10.2014, by respondent No.3 alleging that he is an encroacher of Government land. Petitioner states that he submitted a reply through his counsel, dated 30.10.2014, but however without considering the said reply and without passing any orders thereon, respondent No.3 deputed respondent No.4, who has already visited the petitioner’s land and damaged part of the property. Hence, apprehending dispossession without considering the reply of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that since the petitioner has already filed a reply, appropriate orders under Section 6 of the Act will be passed by respondent No.3 and further action would depend upon the orders to be passed under Section 6.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to consider petitioner’s reply and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 11, 2014 Note:
Furnish copy in two days.
{B/o} LMV