Ravipati Anjaneyulu vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 550 AP

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                       &
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
                WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.13 OF 2023
                       (Through physical mode)

Ravipati Anjaneyulu,
S/o R.Prasad, Aged about 25 years,
Occ: Private Employee, R/o.19-1/2,
Katuri Vari Palem, Podili,
Prakasam District and others.
                                                                 ..Petitioners
                                     Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by the Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department, Secretariat,
Velagapudi, Amaravati and others
                                                             ...Respondents

ORAL ORDER Dt:02.02.2023

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation has

been preferred seeking the following relief:

"....to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of 2nd and 4th respondent in prevention of unauthorized constructions and encroachments made in various extents of lands situated in Podili Village at Sy.No.826, 832, 833, 840, about 7 acres land, Sy.No.860/9, 277, 274, 381, Sy.No.381/2 Ac.1.36 cents, Sy.No.400/3 Ac.0.14 cents, Sy.No.400/4 Ac.1.03 cents, Sy.No.400/9 Ac.0.08 cents, Sy.No.390,

389, 388 Ac.1.25 cents, Sy.No.277 an extent of Ac.1.41 cents, Sy.No.273/3, 273/4 an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, Sy.No.853 an extent of Ac.0.50 cents, Sy.No.479, 480 482/3 an extent of Ac.1.25 cents, Sy.No.476/3 an extent of Ac.1.32 cents, Cement Road in Sy.No.302, 294, 293, 295, 296 respectively by the 6th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and consequently direct the 2nd and 4th respondent to take stringent/appropriate action on 6th respondent as per Land Encroachment Art forthwith and to pass......"

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

3. The issue of encroachment of government lands/public utility

lands vested in the State, which are meant for common benefit of

individuals, was considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396,

while dealing with a case of encroachment of village pond. In the said

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having noted its earlier

decisions in M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu

reported in 1999 (6) SCC 464; Friends Colony Development

Committee v. State of Orissa reported in 2004 (8) SCC 733 and

Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi reported in AIR 2001 SC 3215

(followed by the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v. State of Tamil

Nadu [2005 (4) CTC 1 Madras]), issued the following directions as

contained in paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads thus:

"22. Before parting with this case, we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose, the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land."

4. It is to be noted that pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State Government of Andhra

Pradesh framed the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection of

Property) Rules, 2011 (for short, 'the Rules of 2011'), notified vide

G.O.Ms.No.188, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Pts.IV)

Department, dated 21.07.2011. The said Rules provide for the

procedure to be followed for protection of Gram Panchayat properties

and eviction of encroachments.

5. Despite the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal

Singh (supra) as noted above and despite framing the Rules of 2011,

no steps are taken by the authorities of the Gram Panchayat to protect

the Gram Panchayat lands from encroachment, and similarly, no steps

are being taken by the Government and its authorities in protecting the

government lands. As the public authorities are failing in their duties in

protecting the government lands, which are meant for the common use

of general public, despite bringing to their notice, public spirited

persons are approaching this Court to intervene and direct the public

authorities to protect the government lands from encroachments.

6. In identical matters i.e., W.P (PIL) No.140 of 2022 and batch,

which were filed alleging inaction of the State and its authorities in

protecting the government lands of different classifications, viz., tank

land/grama kantham/burial ground/forest land/road margin/play

ground/cart track/hill poramboke/coastal areas/grazing land etc., this

Court placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats (Protection

of Property) Rules, 2011, issued the following directions:

(i) The executive authority, i.e., Panchayat

Secretary, of the respective Gram Panchayats in the State

shall identify the Gram Panchayat lands, which are

unauthorizedly occupied/encroached, and take steps for

removal of such encroachments by issuing notice and

providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized

occupants/encroachers in terms of the procedure

prescribed in Rules of 2011. This complete exercise shall

be done within a period of six months from today.

(ii) So far as the encroachments over the lands

concerning the Municipalities/Forest Department/Revenue

Department are concerned, even if no separate Rules

have been framed prescribing the procedure to be

followed in the matter of removal of encroachments over

those lands, the officials of the concerned Departments,

i.e., the Departments of Municipal Administration, Forest

and Revenue, shall also undertake and complete

the exercise of identification of unauthorized

occupations/encroachments over the lands belonging to

their respective Departments, within a period of two

months from today, and thereafter, take steps for

removal of such encroachments by following the

principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and

providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized

occupants/ encroachers, within a further period of four

months.

7. In view of the fact that the encroachments alleged in the

present writ petition are over the land belonging to the Government

and public road, and following the directions issued in the similar

matter i.e. W.P. (PIL) No.140 of 2022 and batch, we deem it

appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to undertake and

complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized

occupations/encroachments over the subject land, within a period of

two months from today, and thereafter, take steps for removal of such

encroachments by following the relevant rules and the principles of

natural justice i.e. issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing

to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers, within a further period of

four months.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition (PIL) is allowed. No

costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Ksp