Allowed

Manegar Vali Sab v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Aug 2023WP/11215/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without assigning reasons is illegal and arbitrary. The notice, being equivalent to a decree, must be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 16.07.2019 issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar to pass a reasoned order within six weeks.

Manegar Vali Sab Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI<^5^
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
a
I a c»(
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST ’00

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST ’00 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 11215 OF 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

Manegar Vali Sab, S/o. Chinna Sarmas, aged 38 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Kanekal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶8

M.C. Sarmas, S/o. Rahman Sab, Aged 60 years, Occ Cultivation^ R/o. Kanekal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶9

...Petitioners

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶12

District Collector, Ananthapur District at Arianthapur. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurg, Ananthpur District.

¶13

Tahsildar, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur District. 5. Mandal Surveyor. Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur District. 6. T.K.Sardar. S/o.Late Rahiman Sab, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Kanekal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶14

P'Fakruddin, S/o.Late Fakruddin, Aged about 66 years, R/o. Kanekal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶15

P. Sarmas, S/o.Late Kasim Sab. Aged about 48 years, R/o. Kanekal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶16

G. Chinna Fakruddin. S/o.Late Fakruddin Sab, Aged about 66 years, R/o. Kanekal Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in the form of notice dt. 16.07.2019 issued by the 4‘^ respondent under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, thereby insisting the petitioners to vacate from their agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac. 0.17 cents out of Ac. 1.00 cents in Survey Number 299 of Kanekal Revenue Village Mandal of Ananthapur District, without passing reasoned order on the petitioners' objections as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and violative of the provisions of said statute and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents particularly the 4*” respondent not to interfere in any manner with the petitioners' possession over the said land nor insist the petitioners to vacate there from.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

¶21

IdrLo petitioners to vacate from their agricultural landed crooertv ?;V *'=•''OO <=en's in Sun^ey NuXr 299^f the Soondents^nX' Ananthapyr District and consequently direct ovlrTheksaWPnmnort 'nterfere in any manner with the petitioners’ possession over their said property, pending disppsql of main Writ Petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 202?

¶23

Between:

¶24

1	NagepalHHussain Bee W/o ChinnaFakruddin, Aged 50 years, R/o D.No.2/143, Main Road, Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.
2	B. Abdul Sab S/o B. Late Rasul Sab, Aged 63 years, R/o D.Nq.2/340, Main Road, Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.
3	G. Fareeda W/o PeddaVali Sab, Aged 65 years, R/o D. No.7/656, Rahamath Nagar, Ananthapuramu.
4	G. Rafee S/o PeddaNabi Sab, Aged 42 years, R/o D.No7/656, Rahamath Nagar, Ananthapuramu District.
5	T.K. Jainullah _S/o _T.K. TaheerHussain, Aged 33 years, R/o D.No.6/186, Bark Street, Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.
6	GangavaramZeelanBasha S/o G. Ghouse, Aged 30 years, R/o D.No.2/344, Ramakrishna Colony,. Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.
7	BhagavanuNadi Sab S/o Rasool Sad, Aged 60 years, R/o D.No.2/293, Down Street, Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.
8.	GangayaramChinnaFakruddin _S/o- _Fakruddin, Aged 61 years, R/o D.No.2/310, Ramakrishna Colony> Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.
. 9.	ManegarJaina- Bee W/o MukthumNaik, Aged 78. years, R/o D.No.2/91, Muthi Nagar, Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.
10.	Tailor KanekalShakeeFa C/oT.K. TahikHussain,

¶25

¶26

¶27

Aged 52 years, R/q p.No.2/7, - • Behind Government Hospital, Kanekal, Ananthapuramu District.

¶28

... Petitioners/Proposed respondents 10 to 19

¶29

AND

¶30

occ',. Clio fcfWAetod 2 state of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat VelagapudiAmaravati Guntur District 1_. _ManegarVaH Sab, S/o ChinnaSarmas, Aged 42 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Kanekai Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District. ‘ r\c slo /geA Go Versus	... Respondent/Petitioner
If.® District Collector Ananthapur District at Ananthapur
Revenue Divisional Officer' KalyanadurgAnanthpur District
6. > Tahsildar KanekalMandalAnanthapur District
•4.6 Mandal Surveyor KanekalMandalAnanthapur District
_S/o _Late Rahiman Sab Aged about 55 years R/0 K^nekai Village and MandalAnanthapur District TK Sardar
5/0.Late Fakruddin Aged ^bout 66 years cii P Fakruddin R/o Kanekai Village and MandalAnanthapur District
10 § PSarmas • . _S/o _Late Kasim Sab Aged about 48 years R/o Kanekai Village and MandalAnanthapur District
lb G ChinnaFakruddin S/o Late Fakruddin Sab Aged about 66 years R/o Kanekai Village and MandalAnanthapur. District	... Respondents/ Petitioners

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order Dt. 14.08.2019 passed in W.P. No. 11215 of 2019 and dismiss the writ petition.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶34

Counsel for the-Respondents 6 to 9: SRI P.VENGAL REDDY

¶35

The Court made the following: order

¶36

V ■■

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No. 11215 of 2019

¶38

Manegar Vali Sab, S/o Chinna Sarmas, aged 38 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o Kanekal . Village and Mandal, Ananthapur District and another.

¶39

... Petitioners

¶40

Versus

¶41

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi,. Amaravati, Guntur District and eight others.

¶42

... Respondents

¶43

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Nimmagadda Revathi Counsel for respondents : GP for Revenue and Sri P. Vengal Reddy

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare notice, dated 16.07.2019 issued by respondent No.4, under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Acf), without considering the explanation of the petitioners, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶46

2. a) In the affidavit, it was contended that petitioner No. l is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land of an

¶47

Page 2 of 6

¶48

SRS, J W.P.No.11215 of 2019

¶49

****

¶50

****

¶51

extent of Ac. 1-00 cents out of Ac.2-27, cents in survey No.370 of Kanekal Revenue Village, Ananthapur District. Petitioner No.l purchased. the same under registered sale deed, dated 05.10.1987. The then Tahsildar granted pattadar passbook vide patta No. 1915 and title deed. Said land was sub-divided and Ac.00-17 falls in survey No.299 and rest of the land in survey No.300. Later both the survey numbers were merged and were shown under survey 370/3, in the webland.

¶52

b) When respondent Nos.6 to 9 interfered with the possession of petitioner No.l , he filed suit O.S.No.86 of 2019 on . the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, seeking perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, l.A.No.283 of 2019 was filed and interim injunction was granted. While so, at the instance of respondent Nos.6 to 9, respondent No.5 came to the subject land and got it surveyed and marked a portion of land as proamboke. Hence, petitioner No.l filed W.P.No. 10228 of 2019 and the same is pending.

¶53

c) While matter stood thus, respondent No.4, issued notice, dated 06.07.2019 under Section 7 of the Act, to the father of petitioner No. 1 i i.e. petitioner No.2 alleging that

¶54

-s.

¶55

Page 3 of 6

¶56

SRS, J W.P.No.11215 of 2019

¶57

petitioner No.2 encroached land in an extent of Ac.0-17 cents in survey No.299 of Kanekal village. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶58

Respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that the explanation submitted by petitioner No.2 is not convincing and hence, notice, dated 16.07.2019 under Section 6 of the Act, was issued. But, the addressee refused to receive the notice. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶59

Heard, Ms. P. Haritha, learned counsel representing Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioners. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.l to 5 and Sri P. Vengala Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9.

¶60

As seen from the. proceedings issued by Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Act, no reasons were assigned. . Cyclostyled notice has been issued to petitioner No.2. In fact, pursuant to the notice, dated 06.07.2019 issued under Section 7 of the Act, l-p^titioner No.2 submitted explanation. In the counter affidavit, it

¶61

\ •

¶62

Page 4 of 6

¶63

SRS, J W.P.No.11215 of 2019

¶64

was stated by respondent No.4 that explanation is not convincing. However, notice under Section 6 of the Act does not

¶65

indicate reasons.

¶66

The order passed under Section 6 of the Act is equivalent to decree and is executable in nature. In Kadiyala Sudershan aivd qthers v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others^. learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as under:

¶67

“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.” 7. In view of the above principle, as the notice impugned does not contain any reasons, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶68

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the notice, dated 16.07.2019 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The matter is remanded to respondent No.4. Petitioners are at liberty to file fresh objections, if any, and respondent No.4 shall

¶69

' 2013 (5) ALD 212

¶70

Page 5 of 6

¶71

SRS, J W.P.No.11215 of 2019

¶72

■i

¶73

consider objections and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners, within a period of six weeks from the

¶74

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶75

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶76

stand dismissed.

¶77

Sd/- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^SEC-fiM^ER /

¶78

’l. The Principal Secretary to Government. Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Ananthapur District at Ananthapur. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalyanadurg, Ananthpur District.

¶79

The Tahsildar, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur District. 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Kanekal Mandal, Ananthapur District. 6. One CC to M/s Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri P.Vengal Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies

¶80

HIGH COURT

¶81

DATED:29/08/2023

¶82

ORDER WP.No.11215 of 2019

¶83

I 2 1 SEP 2023
Current Section

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Manegar Vali Sab v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manegar Vali Sab v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Ramanaiah Vs the State of Ap

Nsl Textiles Limited Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vusa Adiseshu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Lakkimsetty Sita Maha Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guntamadugu Krishnama raju Vs The State of Ap

Smt. Adduru DevammaATDevudamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh