Andhra High CourtKadiyala Sudershan And Others vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By ... on 29 July, 2013Author:C.V.Nagarjuna ReddyBench:C.V.Nagarjuna ReddyTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY            

Writ Petition No.19502 of 2013

Dated:29-07-2013 

Kadiyala Sudershan and others...Petitioners

Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents 

Counsel for the Petitioners:Sri Bhaskara Rao Bandarupalli
                                        
Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (TA) 

<Gist:

>Head note: 

?Cases referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY           
Writ Petition No.19502 of 2013


The Court made the following:

ORDER:This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notices bearing
Rc.No.A/642/2012, dated 10.01.2013, of respondent No.4.I have heard Sri Bhaskara Rao Bandarupalli, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA)
appearing for the respondents.The petitioners claim to be in possession of Ac.1.20 cents in Survey
No.125/84, Ac.1.22 cents in Survey No.125/51 and Acs.3.22 cents in Survey 
No.125/86 respectively of Mangapeta Village and Mandal.  Respondent No.4 issued 
notice in Appendix - XXXII-A of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short
'the Act'), wherein petitioner Nos.1 and 3 were asked to vacate the land in
Survey No.125/1 and petitioner No.2, the land in Survey No.107/1.  These notices
have been questioned by the petitioners mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that
no order containing reasons was passed under Section 6 of the Act and (2) that
the petitioners are not in possession of the lands in the above-mentioned two
survey numbers which are referred in the impugned notices.At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (TA),
on instructions, submitted that even though the petitioners claim to be in
possession of Survey Nos.125/84, 125/51 and 125/86, they are actually in
possession of the lands in Survey Nos.125/1 and 107/1 and that therefore the
impugned notices have been issued to them.  She further stated that except Form- XXXII-A notice, no separate order has been passed by respondent No.4.A person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted
under the provisions of the Act.  The Act has laid down the procedure for
evicting such person.  As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause
notice under Section 7 of the Act requires to be given to the person in
occupation of the land.  After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed
under Section 6 of the Act.  If the competent authority is satisfied that the
person in possession of the land is liable to the evicted, he has to issue a
notice in the prescribed form.  Though the provisions of Section 6 of the Act do
not in express terms enjoin on the competent authority to pass a speaking order,
the very fact that Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre-
supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the
explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land.  Unless a
reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as
to why an order of eviction is passed against him.  Further, an appeal under
Section 10 of the Act is envisaged by the Act.  Unless the order contains
reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the
validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal.
From the scheme of the Act, I am of the opinion that the notice of eviction
prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be
supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment.  Otherwise, Section 7 of
the Act providing for issuance of a show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory
or reduced to an empty formality.Having regard to the fact that respondent No.4 has not passed a separate
reasoned order, the impugned notices cannot be sustained and they are
accordingly set aside.  Respondent No.4 shall consider the claims of the
petitioners that they are not in occupation of the lands in Survey Nos.125/1 and
107/1 and pass a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners.The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.23866 of 2013
shall stand disposed of as infructuous.C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J      
29th July, 2013