THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38340 of 2014 Dated: 12.12.2014 Between:
Smt. Samiunnisa Begum .. Petitioner and The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Kothagudem, Khammam District and others.
.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: G.P. for Revenue (TS) The court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Form-A notice dated 21.10.2014 issued in E.C.No.48 of 2014 by respondent No.2, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 11.11.2014 to explain as to why her eviction shall not be ordered in pursuance of the proceedings issued under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 and Amended Act 15 of 1986, and also the subsequent notice dated 27.11.2014, requiring her to be present before respondent No.2 on 13.12.2014.
The petitioner pleaded that the property in respect of which the impugned proceedings have been initiated originally belonged to the Government and that respondent No.3 has granted patta vide proceedings in Rc.No.B/3488/02 dated 16.11.2007. The petitioner further pleaded that respondent No.3 has regularized the construction of house by her by collecting regularization charges and issued patta certificate dated 30.10.2008. The petitioner accordingly pleaded that respondent No.2 inherently lacks jurisdiction to initiate the impugned proceedings.
In my opinion, the writ petition is premature for the reason that no order adverse to the interest of the petitioner has been passed. Respondent No.2 has given the petitioner an opportunity of submitting her objections as to why she shall not be ordered to be evicted. Therefore, I do not find any reason for the petitioner not to appear before respondent No.2, plead her case and request him to drop further proceedings, as she claims to be the owner of the property. It is only in the event an order adverse to his interests is passed, that the petitioner is entitled to avail further legal remedies. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 at this stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that, as the petitioner could not file her objections in contemplation of filing the present writ petition, time may be extended for submission of her objections before respondent No.2.
In the light of this request, the petitioner is permitted to submit her objections before respondent No.2 within two weeks from today. On receipt of such objections, respondent No.2 shall fix a fresh date for enquiry.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.47973 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th December, 2014 IBL