Vurum Naga Venkata Somasekhar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 3041 AP

       THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

                      WRIT PETITION No.22934 of 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

                "to    issue    a    Writ    of   Mandamus     or    any   other
           appropriate          writ   declaring      that    the    action    of

respondents 2 to 9 in demolishing 80% of petitioner's two storied building bearing vide Door No.2-76 (Old 2-5) located in an extent of 200 Sq.yards of site in SR.No.65 of Sanivarapupeta, Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District, on 19.6.2016, without issuing any notice, is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, violative of Articles 14, 21, & 300A of the Constitution of India, contrary to the cannons of Natural Justice and mandate of Land Acquisition Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 and thereby direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the petitioner in the interest of justice and grant such other relief as it deems fit..."

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of

the property to an extent of 200 square yards in RS.No.65 at

Sanivarapupeta, Eluru, West Godavari District. In the said

property, the petitioner has constructed a two storied building,

wherein the ground floor consists of 6 rooms, in which the

petitioner has been running shop-cum-Pan Broker business. He

has been taking out his livelihood by doing business without any

interruption from anybody whatsoever by paying the necessary

taxes and charges to the concerned authorities.

3. While the matter being so, on 19.06.2016, the

respondents, without issuing any prior notice and without

initiating any land acquisition proceedings demolished the

petitioner's RCC Building by 80%, for the purpose of road

widening. By virtue of the said demolition of a part of the

building, the entire remaining portion also got damaged. As such,

the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had relied

upon a judgment of the High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad,

in Uppalapati Venkata Satyanarayana Prabhas Raju Vs. State

of Telangana, Represented by it Prl. Secretary, Revenue

Department, Hyderabad and others, wherein, the Court has

held that even the encroachers are vested with certain rights,

such as a right of notice before eviction, passing of an order and

the remedies of appeal and revision.

5. The respondent Nos.4 to 7, filed a counter stating

that the father of the petitioner herein i.e., Sri. Vurum

Veerabhadra Rao filed O.S.No.1194 of 2004 against the Mandal

Revenue Officer, Eluru, and 4 others and sought for permanent

injunction, stating that he is resident and got residential upstair

building in Door No.2-5 of Sanivarapupeta, Eluru Mandal, West

Godavari District and the father of the petitioner used to pay

property tax to the Panchayat and the said property is situated

adjacent to the main road of Sanivarapupeta leading to Nuzvid.

The said road i.e., 5 sq. yards in R.S.No.64 of Sanivarapupeta,

Eluru Mandal, West Godavari District is under the control of the

Roads and Buildings Department and the said suit was

dismissed on 08.04.2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Eluru.

6. It is further stated that after dismissal of

O.S.No.1194 of 2004 on the filed of Principal Junior Civil Judge

Court, Eluru, the respondent Nos4 to 7 vide letter dated

20.05.2016 addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Eluru, requesting

to take action as per law duly issuing notices U/s.7 and 6 of A.P.

Land Encroachment Act to remove the encroachments to widen

the road from Km 31.0 to 35.708 and village limits of

Sanivarapupeta and Gowravaram and other encroachments if

any. Accordingly, the Tahsildar tried to serve notices to the

petitioner as well as other encroachments U/s. 7 and 6 of A.P.

Land Encroachment Act, but the petitioner refused to receive the

said notices and accordingly, panchanama was conducted on

02.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 respectively.

7. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the

learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings has produced

a copy of the instructions of the Executive Engineer, (R&B),

Eluru, vide Letter No.WP.22934/2016/A7/2022, dated

03.02.2023 wherein it is stated that on a letter addressed by the

6th respondent-Deputy Executive Engineer herein, on

20.05.2016, requesting to remove the encroachments for

widening of road from Km 31.00 to 35.708 i.e., Duggirala,

Sanivarapupeta & Gowravaram village limits in the interest of

public, the Tahsildar tried to serve notices to the petitioner as

well as other encroachers under Section 7 and 6 of AP Land

Encroachment Act. But, as the petitioner has refused to receive

the said notices, therefore Panchanama was conducted on

02.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 respectively.

8. The Revenue Authorities have taken possession of

the 5 sq. yards of property in RS.No.64 and handed over to Roads

and Buildings Department on 14.06.2016. On 19.06.2016, the

Tahsildar, Eluru initiated proceedings under Section 144 Cr.PC

vide M.C.No.92/16, dated 19.06.2016. As per the Revenue

records i.e., adangal the land in Rs.No.64 and 65 belongs to the

Government, as such the Tahsildar, Eluru issued notice under

Section 7 and 6 of the Land Encroachment Act with regard to the

land 5 sq. yards in RS.No.64 and 65 of Sanivarapupeta and

hence the respondents, after following the due process of law,

have demolished the building to an extent of 5 sq. yards only.

9. Admittedly, as per the counter and as well as the

instructions, it appears that the petitioner has encroached to an

extent of 5 sq. yards and accordingly, after issuing notice and

duly conducting a panchanama, the respondent department have

demolished the construction made by the petitioner.

10. In view of the said fact, this Court feels it appropriate

to dispose of the writ petition, by directing the respondents not to

interfere with regard to the remaining extent of land beyond 5 sq.

yards, without following due procedure of law.

11. Accordingly, with the above direction, writ petition is

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,

shall also stand closed.

____________________________________ SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA GSS.

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

Writ Petition No. 22934 of 2016

GSS