Kakumani Chenchu Sailaja, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.16914 of 2017 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

The petitioner challenges Notice No.Rc.B.209/ 2015, dated 03-05-2017, as vague, suffers from non-application of mind and having regard to these infirmities, the notice has to be considered as without jurisdiction.

The notice impugned in the writ petition reads thus:- " Rc .B.209/ 2015 Office of the Tahsildar Podalakur, dt.03.05.2017.

NOTICE Sub : Removal of encroachments - by the side of Roads and Buildings department Road, Podalakur village - further action. Ref : (1) Orders of High Court, Hyderabad in PIL No.240/ 2014 dt.28.03.2016.

(2) Letter dated 29.04.2017 of Dy. Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Dept., Podalakur.

:: 00 ::

As per the orders of High Court, Hyderabad in PIL No.240/ 2014 dated 28.03.2016 and as per the letter of Roads and Building Department in the reference 2nd cited above, the encroachments in Bus Stand Road in Podalakur Panchayat will be removed. It is informed that the encroachments shall have to be removed voluntarily within a week from the date of issuance of this notice otherwise the encroachment will be removed by government machinery.

Tahsildar, Podalakur."

A bare reading of the notice discloses that the 4th respondent, purporting to act pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in PIL No.240 of 2014, has initiated steps for removing alleged encroachment.

This Court is compelled to observe that the implementation by the 4th respondent gives more scope for argument and further delaying the process initiated by the 4th respondent. In other words, the notice impugned in the writ petition does not disclose barest or bare details on the identity of property, extent of encroachment, nature of construction etc.

Further, while calling upon the petitioner to remove encroachment, the 4th respondent informs through notice dated 03.05.2017 that if the petitioner does not remove encroachment, the encroachment will be removed by Government machinery. This Court is of the view that the Hon'ble Division Bench directed the 2nd respondent to look into the encroachments and if circumstances warrant, remove encroachments. This cannot be understood as authorizing removal of alleged encroachment without recourse to law. On the two grounds that the notice does not disclose details and as rightly complained by petitioner suffers from non-application of mind, the notice is set aside. It is always open to the 2nd respondent or the 4th respondent to take steps for removing encroachments, if any, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is ordered as indicated above. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. _____________ S. V. BHATT, J Dt: 30-06-2017 Prv

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.16914 of 2017 30-06-2017 Prv