Telangana High Court
Bodha Ram Babu, vs The State Of Telangana Rep. By Its ... on 24 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.1175 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the
respondent No.4 in issuing impugned notices under section 7 and 6 of
the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to the petitioner pertaining to
the private patta land bearing Sy.No.1 (1/14) to an extent of Ac.0.34
guntas situated at Laxshmidevipalli Village, Paloncha Mandal,
Khammam District and directing the respondents No.5 and 6 to take
possession of the above land without considering the explanation
Dt.7.1.2016 along with enclosed documents of the petitioner is in
violation of principles of natural justice Article 300-A of the
Constitution of India, Section 7 and 6 of the A.P.Land Encroachment
Act, 1905 itself, to be declared as illegal, null and void and
consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents not to
evict the petitioner over the land bearing Sy.No.1 (1/14) to an extent
of Ac.0.34 guntas situated at Laxshmidevipalli Village, Paloncha
Mandal, Khammam District under the guise of the above proceedings
of the 4th respondent..."
2. Heard Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
appearing for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.34 gts.
in Survey No.1 (1/14) situated at Laxshmidevipalli Village, Paloncha
Mandal, Khammam District, presently Bhadradri Kothagudem
District. He further submits that one Kanithi Guttappa was owner of
land to an extent of Ac.3.30 gts. in Sy.No.1, which is acquired by him
in the year 1989 through assignment patta. He further submits that
one Suvvarapu Pallavi purchased an extent of Ac.0.34 gts., out of
Ac.3.30 gts., from Kanithi Somaiah and Kanithi Arjun, who are the
sons of Kanithi Guttappa, under sale deed dated 19.11.1986. The
petitioner had purchased the above said land from Suvvarapu Pallavi
on 13.08.1999 by paying valuable sale consideration and since then
he has been in physical possession of the subject property and also
constructed a house bearing No.7-5 and paying property tax to the
Gram Panchayat.
3.1. He further submits that respondent No.4 issued notice under
Section 7 of the Act No.3 of Madras, 1905, (for short, 'the Madras Act)
directing the petitioner to submit explanation why he should not be
evicted from the subject property. Pursuant to the same, the
petitioner submitted explanation on 07.01.2016 to respondent No.4.
However, respondent No.4 without considering the same passed the
impugned order dated 07.01.2016 under Section 6 of the Madras Act.
3.2. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the provisions of
Madras Act are not applicable to the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Hence, the proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 exercising the
powers conferred under the Madras Act dated 05.01.2016 and the
impugned order dated 07.01.2016 are liable to declared as illegal and
without jurisdiction. He further contended that that the subject
property is private patta land. Unless and until respondent No.4
establishes his rights by approaching the competent civil Court is not
entitled to issue summary proceedings.
3.3. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Madanapalle Burudu Medara, Chittoor
District v. Sub-Collector, Chittoor District and others 1.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
the subject property is a government land and the petitioner had
encroached the same. Respondent No.4 after following the due
process of law rightly passed the impugned order dated 07.01.2016.
The petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal as provided
under the Act, straight away approached this Court and filed the
present writ petition and the same is not maintainable under law.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the record, it reveals that the
petitioner is claiming rights over the property to an extent of Ac.0.34
gts., out of Ac.3.30 gts., basing on the document dated 13.08.1999
said to have been executed by Suvvarapu Pallavi, who purchased the
same from Kanithi Somaiah and Kanithi Arjun, who are the sons of
Kanithi Guttappa, on 19.11.1986. It further reveals that the
petitioner has constructed a house in the subject property and the
1 2019 (40( ALD 92
respective Gram Panchayat allotted House No.7-5 and he is paying
house tax. Respondent No.4 issued the show-cause notice on
05.01.2016 invoking the provisions of the Madras Act directing the
petitioner to submit explanation on or before 07.01.2016 without
giving reasonable time to the petitioner to submit the explanation. It
also reveals that the petitioner had submitted explanation dated
07.01.2016 to the show-cause notice through courier service on
08.01.2016, but by that time, respondent No.4 passed the impugned
order dated 07.01.2016 under Section 6 of the Madras Act.
6. In Madanapalle Burudu Medara referred supra, the combined
High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad held that the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act 3 of
the Madras Act, 1905 is not applicable to the State of Andhra
Pradesh and the State of Andhra Pradesh is having separate Land
Encroachment Act i.e., The Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act,
1905, which came into force from 23.12.1904 and set aside the
impugned notice. In the case on hand, respondent No.4 initiated
proceedings under Madras Act and passed the impugned order
without application of mind. Hence, the notice dated 05.01.2016 and
consequential order dated 07.01.2016 passed by respondent No.4 are
liable to be set aside.
7. Though learned counsel for the petitioner raised several
grounds that the subject property is a private patta land and not a
government land; unless and until respondent No.4 establishes his
rights by approaching the competent civil Court he is not entitled to
initiate the proceedings under Act, this Court is not inclined to go
into the said aspects at this juncture on the sole ground that
respondent No.4 had issued notice dated 05.01.2016 under Madras
Act and passed the impugned order dated 07.01.2016.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the notice dated 05.01.2016 and the
impugned order passed by respondent No.4 dated 07.01.2016 are set
aside
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However,
respondent No.4 is granted liberty to initiate the proceedings afresh,
in accordance with law, if so aggrieved.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition
shall stand closed.
______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 24.06.2024
mar
