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.23074 of 2014 BETWEEN Bankapuri Mangamma.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. SYED KHADER MASTAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner, who claims to be the owner of Ac.0.59 cents in Sy.No.997/1 to 4 of Chavapalem village, Devipalem Grampanchayat, West Gudur, Gudru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, states that the aforesaid land is a private patta land and that she has been in possession since the date of execution of the document in his favour dated 25.01.2012. It is, however, stated that the fourth respondent issued Section 7 notice under A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioner alleging that petitioner is found to have encroached the Government land to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents. Petitioner claims that she has already submitted explanation in response to the said notice and copy whereof is produced along with the writ petition. However, no date is mentioned with regard to the said explanation. It is stated that while no orders are passed under Section 6 of the Act, the fourth respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner in pursuance of the said notice under Section 7 of the Act.
3. Since the fourth respondent has chosen to issue a notice to the petitioner inviting an explanation, it is difficult to accept that the fourth respondent would try to dispossess the petitioner without even considering the said explanation and passing an order, as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act.
The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner, as aforesaid, in the light of all attending circumstances and pass a reasoned order under Section 6 of the Act and then take appropriate steps, if any.
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 DSK