Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R.C.No.593/2023 vs Godavari District on 25 October, 2023
VJP,J
W.P.No.28250 of 2023
1
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.No.28250 of 2023
Judgment:
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction in the nature of
mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent in
R.C.No.593/2023, dated 12.10.2023, seeking police aid to evict the
petitioner from his agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents situated
in Sy.No.839 of Kanavaram Revenue Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East
Godavari District, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd
respondent as illegal, irregular, violative of principles of natural justice
and consequently suspend the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in
R.C.No.593/2023, dated 12.10.2023 and to direct respondent Nos.4 to 7
not to interfere with petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the subject land.
2. Heard Sri Manchala Solomon Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri K. Dileep Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Metta Sapthagiri,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. With the consent of learned counsel representing both
parties, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at this
admission stage.
VJP,J
W.P.No.28250 of 2023
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings under Section 7 of Andhra
Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short 'the Act') dated
28.07.2023, without considering the explanation submitted by the
petitioner dated 04.08.2023. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this
court in W.P.No.20051 of 2023 wherein, the respondent No.4 i.e., the
Tahsildar, Rajanagaram Mandal, is directed to pass orders considering
the explanation submitted by the petitioner within time frame. After
considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent
No.4 passed order under Section 6 of the Act, dated 08.08.2023.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District
Collector (respondent No.2) on 04.09.2023. In turn, the District
Collector endorsed the same to the respondent No.3 - the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, to look into the matter. Pendency of
an appeal before the 2nd respondent, now Tahsildar i.e., respondent No.4
addressed a letter to the Police to provide police aid to evict the
petitioner on 27.10.2023 at 11.00 A.M.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
petitioner's family has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject
land for the last 40 years. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Tummala Krishna Rao's case, learned counsel
would submit that comprehensive enquiry need to be done in case of
long possession over the land, but not summary enquiry as mentioned
under Board Standing Orders. Learned counsel prays the court to order
VJP,J
W.P.No.28250 of 2023
3
status quo as on this day till the disposal of the appeal, before the
District Collector.
6. Refuting the submissions made supra, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 4
would submit that respondent No.4 initially issued notice under Section
7 to the petitioner. After considering his explanation, passed
proceedings under Section 6 of Act, ordering him to evict from the
subject land. The subject land is a Kaluva Poramboke, which cannot be
assigned to any individual. The efforts made by respondent No.4 to get
the eviction of petitioner from the subject land become in vain due to the
resistance from petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.4 sought police
aid. Meanwhile, the respondent No.3 directed the Tahsildar to look into
the matter. The ratio in the judgment of Tummala Krishna Rao, has
relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present
case.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further
submits that even in re-settlement register, the subject land is shown as
Kaluva Poramboke, if the court is inclined to pass order of status quo, let
there be a direction to the petitioner not to make any alterations in the
subject land.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would
submit that they have received proceedings from Respondent No.4 to
provide police aid, they will obey orders of this court.
VJP,J
W.P.No.28250 of 2023
4
9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel
representing both parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is
not in dispute that an appeal is pending before the District Collector -
respondent No.2, which was endorsed to respondent No.3 - the Revenue
Divisional Officer. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 has to take
a decision over the appeal presented by the writ petitioner. Hence, it is
apposite to direct both parties to maintain status quo as on this day
pending appeal.
10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
both parties to maintain status quo as on this day and respondent No.3
is further directed to treat the representation made by the petitioner as
appeal under Section 10 of the Act and dispose of the same as per the
governing rules and law. Let respondent No.3 issue notice to the writ
petitioner and conduct the enquiry and pass appropriate orders and
communicate the same to the petitioner according to law. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
Date: 25.10.2023.
Vns
VJP,J
W.P.No.28250 of 2023
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
W.P.No.28250 of 2023
Dt.25.10.2023
Vns
