Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sheik Kareem, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.1741 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 notice under
Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short "the
Act"), dated 23.12.2020 and the notice under Section 6 of the Act
dated 18.01.2021 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal,
arbitrary, contrary to the procedure established by law etc.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the
contentions raised in the Writ Petition submits that on
18.01.2021, the notice under Section 7 of the Act dated
23.12.2020 and notice under Section 6 of the Act dated
18.01.2021 were served on the petitioner. As per the contents of
the said notice, the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of
the land in R.S.No.305/3 of Taduvi Village, Jangareddygudem
Mandal, which is stated to be a Kunta.
4. Learned counsel submits that the action of the 4th
respondent in serving both the notices without giving any
opportunity to the petitioner is not sustainable in the law. He
further submits that the action of the 4th respondent in issuing
notice under Section 6 of the Act without assigning any reasons is
contrary to law. In this regard, he places reliance on the
Judgment of the learned Single Judge reported in Kadiyala
Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. He
contends that on the ground that the impugned notice issued
under Section 6 is bereft of reasons deserves to be set aside.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on the
other hand submits that the petitioner has encroached upon
Kunta land and raised a shopping complex in the subject matter.
As such, the authorities are justified in initiating action under the
provisions of the Act.
6. Considered the submissions of both the counsel and the
judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
learned single Judge in the above referred judgment has held that
"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". Considering the facts of the said case, the
learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the
impugned notice under Section 6 of the Act.In the present case,
notice under Section 6 of the Act dated 18.01.2021 has been
issued without passing any reasoned order.
7. In view of the judgment referred to above, this Court is of
the opinion that the impugned notice dated 18.01.2021 is liable
to be set aside. Accordingly, the notice dated 18.01.2021 is set
aside. The petitioner shall file an explanation to the notice issued
2013 (6) ALT 42
under Section 7 of the Act within a period of two (2) weeks from
today and on receipt of the same, the 4th respondent is directed to
consider and pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks
thereafter. Till appropriate orders as directed above are passed,
no coercive steps with regard to the property in question shall be
taken.
8. 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
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.1741 OF 2021
Dated: 04.02.2021
EPS
