Heard Learned Counsel For The vs This Court Is Of The Opinion That ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 598 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                       W.P.No.2872 of 2022
ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader.

Learned counsel for the petitioner essentially states that

the notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land

Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short 'the Act') was not served on

the petitioner. The notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued

granting only two days time for vacating the premises. It is his

contention that without following the procedure, both the

notices have been given. He also argues that basing on a

judgment of learned single Judge of the combined high Court in

Rahmatullah Khan and others v. Government of Andhra

Pradesh and others1, fixing such arbitrary and short periods

would run contrary to the rules of natural justice and is also

contrary to the appeal provision which is a statutory remedy

available to the petitioner. He also raises other issues both legal

and factual which are mentioned in the writ affidavit. Therefore,

learned counsel submits that this notice under section 6 of the

Act dated 19.01.2022 giving them two days time to vacate

should be set aside.

In reply to this, learned Government Pleader agrees that

the judgment in Rahmatullah Khan's case (1 supra) still

2014 (2) ALD 272

continues to be good law. However, he submits that the

impugned notice under Section 6 of the Act was only issued

after following the procedure under Section 7 of the Act etc.

Therefore, he states that no further orders are warranted.

This Court is of the opinion that the learned counsel for

the petitioner has made out a case for interference. The very

purpose of granting time for filing an appeal would be defeated,

if arbitrary two day period is fixed by the respondents. The

provision of appeal is a statutory right conferred on the

petitioner. He cannot be prevented from exercising that right.

Right to property is recognized as a right which is capable of

being enforced. Therefore, the two day period given would

render the right virtually illusory.

However, this Court does not want to go further into the

merits of the matter. Since the petitioner has a right to file a

statutory appeal and an opportunity to raise all his legal and

factual pleas, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice

would be sub-served if the notice dated 19.01.2022 which fixes

two day period is kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In this period of

three weeks, the petitioner is directed to file the statutory appeal

and seek interim appropriate orders also from the appellate

authority.

With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand

dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date : 03.02.2022 Note: Issue C.C. in two days KLP