Kanumuri Satya Vijaya Venkata Suryanarayana Raju, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Principal Secretary,
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16069 of 2016 ORDER:
The instant writ petition is filed for Mandamus in terms of the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing Orders dated 05-05-2016, in R.C.No.196/2013 (a) directing the petitioner to vacate the Fish Tank admeasuring Ac. 2-42 in R.S.No. 152, Dumpagadapa Village, Aakivedu Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere into the land of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of justice, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue elaborately. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondents is in regard to the title over the subject
property admeasuring Ac.2-42 1/3 cents. The petitioner is mainly resting his claim on the order passed by the Estate Abolition Tribunal, West Godavari, at Eluru, in Tribunal Appeal No.2 of 1975, dated 26.07.1977. The petitioner has not filed the certified copy of the said order but filed only a typed copy thereof.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out certain findings recorded by the Tribunal touching the right of the petitioner over the subject property. It appears that the respondents have proceeded with issuance of notice under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short 'the Act'), dated 25.04.2016, by the Tahsildar, Akividu, which is followed by the notice dated 05.05.2016 issued under Section 6 of the Act.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has in fact instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.27 of 2016 before the III Additional District Court, Bhimavaram, deriving the cause of action basing on the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act on 25.04.2016. However, subsequently notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued as stated above. In that view of the matter, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the very relief sought in the civil suit becomes infructuous. According to the learned counsel, without there being a speaking order as required under Section 6(2) of the Act, mere issuance of notice under Section 6 of the Act would not satisfy the
requirement of Section 6 of the Act, so as to remove the alleged encroachment or to take pursuant action, and the very impugned notice is bad in law.
It is also his submission that only two days time is given to the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment. He therefore seeks protection of the possession of the petitioner.
Learned Government Pleader, during the course of arguments, represents that a detailed order is being drafted and it is under the process of service on the petitioner.
In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner requests to protect the petitioner's possession for a limited period to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the Act in the meanwhile. Since the order stated to have been passed by the authority concerned is yet to be served on the petitioner, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained till 10.05.2016 to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order and the order of status quo granted herein shall not have any effect on the authority concerned, whom the petitioner intends to approach, in deciding the dispute or the issue in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in the instant writ petition, stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA 06.05.2016 Note:- Issue CC by 09.05.2016.
B/o v v/ibl