THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.2588 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. With their consent, the Writ Petition is being disposed off.
2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the notices under Section 7 & 6 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short "the Act"), dated 06.01.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the procedure established by law etc.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners interalia contended that the respondent No.3 had simultaneously issued notices under Section 7 & 6 of the Act, dated 06.01.2021 and the same is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel submits that no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the petitioners for submitting the explanation pursuant to the notices issued under Section 7 of the said Act which is also not tenable. Learned counsel further submits that infact the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question for more than 30 years and under the said circumstances invocation of the provisions under the said Act is contrary to law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1982 (2) SCC 134. Apart from the same, learned counsel also submits that the issuance of notice under Section 6 of the Act without assigning any detailed 2 reasons is contrary to the judgment of this erst while High Court reported Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"notice of eviction under Section 6 of the Act is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality."
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that there is no violation of law as only notices were issued to the petitioners and in the event, this Court is of the opinion that proper notices have not been issued to the petitioners, appropriate orders may be passed.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the impugned notices, this Court is of the considered view that the authorities i.e., 3rd respondent has not followed the statutory provisions of the 'Act' in true letter and spirit and they issued the impugned notices simultaneously. Further, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners no opportunity is afforded before initiating the action under the Act.
6. In view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, referred to above, the impugned notice dated 06.01.2021 issued under Section 6 of the Act is set aside. The petitioner is granted three (3) 1 2013 (6) ALT 42 3 weeks time for filing explanation/objections to the notice under Section 7 of the Act. Needless to say after filing of the explanation, the respondent No.3 shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter. Till appropriate orders as directed above are passed, no coercive steps with regard to the property in question shall be taken.
7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Dated: 04.02.2021 B/o. EPS 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 86 WRIT PETITION No.2588 OF 2021 Dated: 04.02.2021 EPS