29.9.2022 Dr vs Learned Government Pleader
2022 Latest Caselaw 7486 AP

                                    1




         HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI


Main Case No. W.P.No.32197 of 2022

                             PROCEEDING SHEET

 Sl.
                                        ORDER

 No      DATE

1.     29.9.2022   DR, J

The Writ Petition is filed questioning

the notice of Tahsildar, Pendurti Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District, dated 13.04.2022

under Section 7 of AP Land Encroachment

Act, 1905.

The contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that originally the

subject land belongs to several farmers who

are native residents of Velamapeta,

Pendurthi. Thereafter, proposal for

construction of subject premises was placed

before the Gram Panchayat, Pendurthi and

the Gram Panchayat at their meeting held

on 17.03.2000, approved the proposal for

construction of community buildings in an

extent of Ac.0.50 cents at Sy.no.137/P of

Pendurthi Village and Mandal,

Visakhapatnam District.

While so, the subject premises is

assessed to property tax by the Greater

Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and

also obtained electricity connection. The 3rd

respondent issued a notice dated

13.04.2022 under Section 7 of A.P.Land

Encroachment Act, 1908 alleging that the

subject premises is an encroachment

spread across an extent of 1,840/- sq.yards

of land belonging to the Government.

He further contended that now the

respondents with an intention to evict the

petitioner have initiated proceedings under

Land Encroachment Act,1905 (for short 'the

Act') and issued notice under Section 7 of

the Act to the petitioner. On perusal of

the impugned notice issued under Section 7

of the Act, it is clear that no reasons are

mentioned in the impugned notice except

directing the petitioner to evict the subject

land. The learned counsel for the petitioner

further submitted that as per the ratio

decided by this Court in Government of

Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna

Rao and another, it is categorically held

that summarily proceedings can be initiated

only on the unauthorized occupation of the

property which is not in dispute. But, when

the title of the property is in dispute, such

dispute must be adjudicated not by

summarily proceedings but by the civil

Court.

     Learned          Government          Pleader

appearing    for      the     respondents       has

submitted that the impugned order is

passed under Section 7 of the Act and

against the said orders, the petitioner have

separate remedy under Section 10 of the

Act. But, without availing the statutory

remedy, the petitioner have approached this

Court by filing the present Writ Petition

which is not maintainable.

Considering the submissions of thee

learned counsel for the petitioner and in

view of the observations made by the Apex

Court in the above judgment, there shall be

an interim suspension of the impugned

order and notice of the Tahsildar, Pendurthi

Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in

dated 13.04.2022 under Section 7 of the

Act, pending further orders.

For filing counter, post after four(4)

weeks.

_______ DR, J tm