IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.6596 of 2012 BETWEEN Kurva Chinna Saibanna and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K. VENKATESH GUPTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Challenging the eviction notice under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 01.03.2012, this writ petition is filed primarily on the ground that the said eviction notice is not preceded by Section 7 notice under the Act. It is contended that pattas were granted to the extent of Ac.1.30 guntas in favour of petitioner No.3 and an extent of Ac.2.50 guntas in favour of petitioner No.4, both in Sy.No.933 and that they are in long standing possession.
3. By order dated 12.03.2012, this Court granted interim stay of dispossession and the said order is continued from time to time and is in force as on today.
4. The Tahsildar, second respondent, has filed counter affidavit specifically stating in paras 2 and 5 that the impugned eviction notice was preceded by Section 7 notice dated 15.01.2012 and a copy of the notice is also appended to the counter affidavit. To the extent of patta claimed by the petitioners, it is accepted in para 3 that though the patta was granted to the extent of Ac.1.05 guntas in favour of the third petitioner and an extent of Ac.2.50 guntas in favour of the fourth petitioner, the petitioners were found occupying an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas of Government land illegally in Sy.No.933 and hence, with a view to protect the Government land, the action impugned was taken after physical survey and spot inspection of the said survey number.
It is also stated that the first petitioner is having Ac.5.00 guntas of land in adjacent Sy.No.932 and hence, it is not a case of landless poor person seeking allotment.
5. Since the two grounds, on which the writ petition is filed, are clearly contraverted in the counter affidavit and since no reply is filed by the petitioners, I have no reason to doubt the averments in the counter affidavit. Since the order under Section 6 of the Act is passed against the petitioners, the appropriate remedy for them would be to approach the appellate authority under the Act. I am, therefore, not inclined to go into the disputed questions of fact raised in the matter in view of existence of efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners. Since the interim stay of dispossession is in force in favour of the petitioners since 12.03.2012, the said order shall continue to operate for a period of four (4) weeks from today within which time the petitioners are granted liberty to approach the appellate authority and seek appropriate orders therefrom.
The writ petition is accordingly 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 June 11, 2014 DSK