Decided on November 08,2019

Koka Uma Maheswara Dharmarao Appellant


D V S S Somayajulu, J. - (1.)This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief-
"....to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the order vide ROC No.B.983/2019, dated 18.10.2019 is bad, arbitrary, contrary to all canons of law and also offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of Justice and fair play."

(2.)The petitioner before this Court claims to be the son of K. Veeraswamy, who has purchased various extents of land in R.S.Nos.245-2, 243-6 and 243-7 of Mattagunta Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last 40 odd years. According to the petitioner, his father died in November, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land and has also started a fish tank in his carrying out his fishing operations, particularly in the land situated in R.S.No.245-2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the settled possession of the petitioner is being ignored by the respondents. Instead of granting a patta recognizing the settled possession of the petitioner, they are making effort to evict the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the revenue receipts which are filed along with the writ petition for the purpose of proving the petitioner's possession. Her contention, therefore, is that the petitioner is not an encroacher of the land. She submits that under the programme of Navarathnalu houses and house sites are being allotted to the poor people. As the petitioner also qualifies for the same, she submits that the respondents are wrongfully started action against the petitioner under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short "the Act").
(3.)Relying on two judgments Kadiyala Sudershan and others v Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others,2013 SCCOnLine(AP) 596 and Government of Andhra Pradesh v Thummala Krishna Rao and Another, 1982 2 SCC 134, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the process stipulated under the Act has to be followed. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the same is not followed in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that a notice under Section 6 of the Act and an order both dated 18.10.2019 show that the action is taken mechanically without appreciating the evidence. An earlier notice dated 04.09.2019 was issued, to which counsel for the petitioner gave a reply. Learned counsel argues that this reply was not considered. The facts stated therein were also not considered and the impugned order dated 18.10.2019 was passed without considering the facts or the law on the subject. She submits that it is an order passed without any application of mind whatsoever and she prays for an appropriate writ.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.