Petitioner challenged eviction proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Court dismissed writ petition as no adverse order was passed after petitioner submitted explanation. Court directed respondent to pass appropriate order.
Writ petition dismissed; possession not to be disturbed unless final eviction order passed by respondent No.3.
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 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.30759 of 2010
Date: 8.12.2010
Between: B.Ramulamma AND
..... PETITIONER
The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and others.
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam Counsel for Respondents : A.G.P. for Revenue
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.30759 of 2010
Order:
The petitioner is in occupation of 43 sq. yards of land in Survey No.389/5 of Yellamanchili Village, which, admittedly belongs to the Government. Respondent No.3 is stated to have issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act,1905 (for short ‘the Act’) followed by an order of eviction under Section 6 of the Act in the year 2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2, who set aside the said order and remanded the same to respondent No.3. However, after a long gap of time, respondent No.3 issued a fresh notice under Section 7 of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why she shall not be evicted. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation on 11.7.2010 to the said notice. While no order has been passed by respondent No.3 so far, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by raising several contentions on merits.
In my opinion, when the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 have been pending and the petitioner has already submitted her explanation, it is not permissible for the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court at this stage, as no order adverse to the petitioner’s interest has been passed so far. As the petitioner has already submitted her explanation, it is incumbent upon respondent No.3 to carefully consider the same and pass appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such an order, she shall be free to avail further legal remedies available to her under the Act.
In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference of this Court at this stage.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the possession of petitioner shall not be disturbed by the respondents unless a final order of eviction is passed by respondent No.3.
As a sequel to disposal of the main writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.39139 of 2 0 1 0 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J
DATE: 8th December, 2010 pnb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the intersection court can interfere when the petitioner has submitted explanation under the procurement notice and no adverse order has been passed
Whether the respondent authority is duty bound to consider the explanation submitted and pass appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act
Whether detention of possession shall be maintained unless final order of eviction is passed
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Ramulamma
The District Collector, Visakhapatnam
C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
