The Court held that a notice under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act issued without a reasoned order was illegal and arbitrary, directing the 4th respondent to pass a reasoned order in accordance with legal precedents.
Directed the 4th respondent to pass a reasoned order in terms of Kadiyala Sudershan's case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.23655 OF 2021
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“....to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notice issued by the 4th respondent under Section (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act III of 1905 vide Rc.B.114/2021 dated 04.10.2021 as illegal, arbitrary, ultra-vires, contrary to the procedure established by law, contrary to the principles of natural justice, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh V. Thummala Krishna Rao reported in (1982) 2 SCC 134 as well as this Hon’ble Court in Kadiyala Sudershan and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) ALT 42 apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same...”
2
petitioner constructed shop in the said land and residing therein. He is having electricity connection and he has been paying electricity bill and house tax regularly.
3
the petitioner through registered post on 06.10.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
1 2013(5) ALD 212
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 be 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 presupposes 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 envisages 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.”
is passed as held in Kadiyala Sudershan’s case (supra), the notice issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 4th respondent to pass reasoned order in terms of Kadiyala Sudershan’s case (supra).
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 12.10.2021 MP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the notice issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act was illegal due to the absence of a reasoned order as mandated by precedent.
Whether a competent authority is required to pass a speaking order before issuing an eviction notice under Section 6 of the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Andhra Pradesh V. Thummala Krishna RaoReferred¶5
(1982) 2 SCC 134 · Who else cites this
Kadiyala Sudershan and others v. Government of Andhra PradeshApplied¶9
2013 (6) ALT 42
Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and othersApplied¶18
2013(5) ALD 212
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioner
The 4th Respondent
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
