Remanded

Sri Shekar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department

Telangana HC20 Apr 2011WP/10946/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order held that an impugned direction to remove a house from alleged shikam land was a show cause notice. The court directed an enquiry, prohibited eviction or demolition during the enquiry, and allowed the petitioner to file an explanation within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order treated as show cause notice; petitioner directed to file explanation in 30 days; enquiry to be conducted; eviction/demolition stayed.

Sri Shekar Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 10946 OF 2011

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The writ petitioner is alleged to have constructed a residential house in shikam land within the full tank level of Gurja Kunta situate in Survey No. 703 of Dundigal Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Hence, the Tahasildar-cum-Deputy Collector, Qutbullapur Mandal directed the writ petitioner, through the impugned order, dated 09.10.2010, to remove the house within seven days, failing which, the writ petitioner was threatened with the prospects of demolition of the said house, in terms of Sections 51 and 52 of the Andhra Pradesh (TA) Irrigation Act.

¶5

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he has not encroached upon the shikam land of the tank bed and on the other hand, he has acquired this piece of land from his ancestors and therefore, he has constructed a house there. The writ petitioner is willing to participate in any enquiry that may be conducted by the respondents.

¶6

The respondents are obviously under an obligation to protect all water bodies, particularly those situate in and around the twin cities, Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Unless the water bodies are preserved and protected, there will be an ecological imbalance. Therefore, the anxiety of the respondents is perfectly legitimate and understandable, in seeking removal of all encroachments found in shikam lands or those falling within the full tank level of the water bodies, but however, the respondents are also required to follow the due procedure before orders of eviction are passed against the persons alleged to have encroached upon such lands. It is also imperative that a fair chance should be provided to such persons to produce such material as is considered appropriate by them in defence of their contention that they are not guilty of encroaching on to

¶7

shikam lands.

¶8

Therefore, the present impugned order dated 09.10.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Qutbullapur Mandal be treated as a mere show cause notice. The writ petitioner may file his detailed explanation, enclosing thereto such material as is considered necessary and appropriate by him, within a maximum period of 30 days from today. After receipt of the said explanation of the writ petitioner, the 3^rd respondent Deputy Collector-cum-Tahasildar will conduct a detailed enquiry and pass a speaking order as to whether the writ petitioner has encroached upon the shikam land of Gurja Kunta tank situate in Dundigal Village and then, pass appropriate orders. It is needless to observe that such orders should also be communicated to the writ petitioner. Till the aforementioned enquiry is complete and appropriate orders are passed, the writ petitioner may not be evicted or the dwelling unit in which he is residing be not demolished.

¶9

The Writ Petition stands disposed of with this order at the admission stage, as consented to by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. No costs.

¶10

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶11

20^th April 2011

¶12

Issue CC in two days. ksld

Sri Shekar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shekar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Rama Krishnam Raju Hyd and 5 Othrs Vs The Government of a.P., rep. by its Principal

Poola Laxmidevamma Vs The District Collector

G. Srikanth Vs Sri Mohd. Abdul Azeem

Basipogu Lazar Guntur Dist. and 2 Othrs Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Vishwanadham Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs. Azizaa Begum, Vs The District Collector