IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.20423 of 2014 BETWEEN Jerusalem Apostolic Church (Pentecostal Mission) AND ... 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. This writ petition is finally heard at admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel. Petitioner complains of notices issued by respondent No.3-Tahsidlar under Sections 6 and 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, primarily, on the ground that both the notices are issued simultaneously on 15.07.2004 and thereby, there was no opportunity for the petitioner to contest. Petitioner states that he is in lawful possession of the lands, which are acquired for the purpose of the Church and the Church was constructed long back in the year 2006 after obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. However, it appears that some third party made a complaint before the Lokayukta and on that basis, the impugned notices were given.
3. On finding that both then notices are given simultaneously, this court granted interim direction on 22.07.2014 while directing the Government Pleader to get instructions. The said interim order has been extended from time to time.
4. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that both the notices appear to be dated 15.07.2014. He fairly states that in view of the mandate of Section 6, cause shown by the petitioner is required to be considered before taking any decision under Section 6 and hence, the impugned Sections 7 and 6 notices issued simultaneously cannot be sustained.
5. In view of that, the impugned Section 6 notice is quashed and the matter shall stand remitted to respondent No.3 for consideration of the matter from the stage of notice under Section 7 of the Act. Petitioner is at liberty to file any further explanation, if he so desires, within two weeks from today. Respondent No.3 shall consider the explanation, if any submitted by the petitioner earlier, as well as the supplemental explanation and then take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 19, 2014 LMV