Allowed

A J Joseph v. the Mandal Revenue Officer

Telangana HC9 Dec 2010WP/19388/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Honourable Single Judge allowed two identical writ petitions challenging eviction proceedings under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging lack of fair opportunity. Following a precedent, the court set aside the proceedings, remitted the matter to the Primary Authority for fresh adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity to file explanations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; impugned proceedings set aside; matter remitted to Primary Authority for fresh consideration and enquiry after petitioners file detailed explanations.

A J Joseph Vs the Mandal Revenue Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos.17173 and 19388 of 1996

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶5

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions being the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

¶6

The petitioners herein filed the aforementioned writ petitions invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the correctness of the proceedings dated 24.7.1996 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District, the 1^st respondent herein, in directing eviction of the petitioners from the lands in question under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶7

According to the petitioners, since they purchased the lands in question long prior to the commencement of the provisions of Regulation 1/59, the provisions of the Act have no application to the present case. They further contended that on an earlier occasion, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Sondey Venkateswarlu, a case, being Case No. 49/83/Kgm., was registered on the file of the Special Deputy Collector(TW), Paloncha wherein it was contended that since the petitioner in Writ Petition No.17173 of 1996, being a non-tribal is in possession of tribal land, the provisions of Regulation 1/59 would get attracted. However, through order dated 5.3.1984 the Special Deputy Collector dismissed the said case holding that the provisions of Regulation 1/59 would not get attracted. When on an earlier occasion, the learned Special Deputy Collector has declared that the provisions of Regulation 1/59 have no application to the case, the respondents are not justified in issuing the impugned proceedings. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶8

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material

¶9

on record.

¶10

Admittedly, the limited grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that the respondents have not afforded sufficient opportunity to them to contest the proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of the Act. They also pointed out that in an identical case in Writ Petition No. 16057 of 1996, this Court has set aside similar proceedings and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration to the Primary Authority for further adjudication and for passing appropriate orders after calling for an explanation from the petitioners therein and after providing sufficient opportunity to them. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is also similar, these writ petitions may also be allowed and the matters may be remitted back to the primary authority for fresh consideration.

¶11

In view of the fact that the issue involved in these writ petitions being similar, these writ petitions are also allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. The petitioners are at liberty to file their detailed explanations to the impugned proceedings within a period of four weeks from today and on such explanations being filed, the 1^st respondent shall dispose of the matters afresh in accordance with law, after conducting a regular enquiry into the matters and after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to file appropriate oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their case. No costs.

¶12

________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J

¶13

Date: 9^th December, 2010

¶14

pnb

A J Joseph v. the Mandal Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A J Joseph v. the Mandal Revenue Officer

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

Smt. Nirmala M Mane, Vs B. Shivaji Rao

Smt. Chintala Venkatalaxmi, Vs D.P. Bosle (Died Per Lr R-1)

Mohd Salauddin, Vs Sri Sai Sunder Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd.

L.Venkateswara Rao Vs Mandal Revenue Officer

Sabbineedi Sakkubai, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.(Mrs) a.O.Aruna Prafullakumar, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh