Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vurum Sambasiva Rao, Wg District vs Prl. Secretary, Rb Dept., Hyd 8 ... on 11 May, 2023
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.35420 of 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
" "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in
demolishing the petitioners RCC building bearing
D.No.2-76 in SR.No.65 situated at Sanivarapupeta,
Eluru, West Godavari District, without issuing any
prior notice and without following the due process of
law under the Land Acquisition, is as illegal, arbitrary,
violation of principles of natural justice apart from
that, violation of legal duty and legal obligation cast
on them and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, & 300A of
Constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner
under the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, (No.30) of 2013 and also direct the
respondents to pay an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- to the
petitioner towards cost of the land including structure
and also a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the damages
and mental agony caused to the petitioner and to
pass..."
2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of
the property to an extent of 100 square yards in Sanivarapupeta,
Eluru, West Godavari District. In the said property, the petitioner
has constructed a building consisting of two (2) shops, after
obtaining the approval plan by the Panchayat, Sanivarapupeta
and since then, 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 and occupied the land in an extent of
20 sq. yards out of 100 sq. yards, 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 No.8-Village Secretary, filed a
counter stating that they have never interfered or demolished the
petitioner's building and that having not taken possession of the
petitioner's property, the question of paying compensation by the
respondent No.8 does not arise.
6. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the
learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings had produced
a copy of the instructions of the Executive Engineer (R&B),
wherein it is stated that though the Tahsildar, Eluru had tried to
serve notices to the petitioner as well as other encroachments
U/s7 and 6 of AP Land Encroachment Act, the petitioner has
refused to receive the said notice, therefore Panchanama was
conducted on 02.06.2016 and 10.06.2016. It is further stated
that the Revenue Authorities have taken possession of property
in RS.No.64 and handed over to Roads and Buildings Department
on 14.06.2016 and on 19.06.2016, the Tahsildar, Eluru had
initiated proceedings U/s 144 Cr.PC vide M.C.No.92/2016, dated
19.06.2016. As per the Revenue records i.e., adangal the land in
Rs.No.64 belongs to the Government, as such, the Tahsildar,
Eluru issued notices U/s 7 and 6 of AP Land Encroachment Act
with regard to the land in RS.No.64 of Sanivarapupeta.
7. The instructions of the Assistant Executive Engineer,
(R&B), Eluru states that the petitioner has encroached a portion
of 20 square yards under Sy.No.64, which was demolished with
the assistance of the concerned police, revenue and electrical
authorities.
8. Admittedly, as per the counter and as well as the
instructions, it appears that the petitioner has encroached to an
extent of 20 sq. yards and accordingly, after issuing notice and
duly conducting a panchanama, the respondent department have
demolished the construction made by the petitioner.
9. 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 20
sq. yards, without following due procedure of law.
10. 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. 35420 of 2016
GSS
