IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.26880 of 2014 BETWEEN Challa Jakki Reddy AND ... PETITIONERS 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. By the present writ petition, petitioner questions the notice issued by respondent No.3 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for brevity, “the Act”) in Rc.No.B/354/2012, dated 13.09.2012, alleging that the petitioner is an encroacher to the extent of Ac.1-00 of ceiling surplus land in survey No.194. Petitioner states that he along with one G.Mallikarjun Reddy purchased Ac.1-02 guntas in survey No.194 under registered sale deed, dated 26.02.2007, from one G.Sammaiah. Petitioner claims title on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed by contending that it is a patta land of their vendor. However, with reference to the ceiling surplus land, as alleged in the notice, petitioner is stated to have already submitted a reply to respondent No.3. However, the present writ petition is filed alleging that respondent No.2 is now taking steps to dispossess the petitioner, particularly, as in the aforesaid land petitioner is running a function hall and has invested a huge amount. Hence, the invocation of A.P. Land Encroachment Act against the petitioner is questioned in the writ petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that ceiling surplus land of Ac.3-22 guntas in survey No.194 was found to be illegally encroached by the petitioner, G.Mallikarjun Reddy and Ramojulu Laurel Kumar and it appears that the notice under Section 7 of the Act, dated 18.10.2012, was issued to all the three, who have submitted their reply. It is, however, stated that no orders, as such, are passed under Section 6 of the Act.
4. Since the impugned proceeding is only a notice under Section 7, in my view, petitioner could not have challenged the said notice after two years of the said notice and after submitting a reply. Respondent No.3 has requisite jurisdiction under the Act to satisfy himself if any encroachment is found on the land belonging to the Government. Hence, the notice issued to the petitioner, which is impugned in the writ petition, does not deserve to be interfered with and the relief sought for by the petitioner in that regard cannot be granted.
5. Alternatively, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that petitioner be granted an opportunity to submit a supplemental explanation to the said notice, as he has received subsequent information and the documents, which he would like to attach and present before respondent No.3, in continuation of his reply already filed.
6. Keeping in view the fact that no final orders under Section 6 of the Act are passed, in my view, an opportunity, as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be granted.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of permitting the petitioner to file supplemental explanation to the impugned notice on or before 30.09.2014 and respondent No.3 shall consider the same along with the earlier reply and then take appropriate decision and pass appropriate orders under Section 6 of the Act. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 16, 2014 Note: -
Furnish copy in three days.
{B/o} LMV