Partly allowed

Estate Manager, v. D.Srinivasulu

Telangana HC8 Nov 2011WP/22234/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ten writ petitions challenging eviction orders passed against railway land encroachers. The court quashed the High Court's direction to file a title suit, finding title undisputed. It ordered the Estate Manager to consider respondents' replies within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed. Eviction proceedings relegated to Estate Manager for hearing both sides and passing appropriate orders within three months. Direction to file civil suit set aside.

Estate Manager, Vs D.Srinivasulu — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21908 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22234 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22235 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22237 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22238 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22239 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22241 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22249 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22252 of 2011 and

¶3

**WRIT PETITION No.22258 of 2011 Date: November 08, 2011 WRIT PETITION No.21908 of 2011: Between: Estate Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner And K.R. Veeranna … Respondent * * *** **WRIT PETITION No.22234 of 2011 : Between: Estate Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner And D. Srinivasulu … Respondent * * *** WRIT PETITION No.22235 of 2011: Between: Estate Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner And Anjanamma … Respondent

¶4

- WRIT PETITION No.22237 of 2011:
  Between:
  Estate Manager,
  South Central Railway,
  Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner
  And
  G. Govindu … Respondent
  *
  WRIT PETITION No.22238 of 2011:
  Between:
  Estate Manager,
  South Central Railway,
  Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner
  And
  Peddakka … Respondent
  *
  WRIT PETITION No.22239 of 2011:
  Between:
  Estate Manager,
  South Central Railway,
  Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner
  And
  G. Govindu … Respondent
  * *
  WRIT PETITION No.22241 of 2011:
  Between:
  Estate Manager,
  South Central Railway,
  Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner
  And

¶5

Gangamma … Respondent
*****
WRIT PETITION No.22249 of 2011:
Between:
Estate Manager,
South Central Railway,
Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner
And
G. Ramanjaneyulu … Respondent
*****
WRIT PETITION No.22252 of 2011:
Between:
Estate Manager,
South Central Railway,
Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner
And
G. Nagaraju … Respondent
*****
WRIT PETITION No.22258 of 2011:
Between:
Estate Manager,
South Central Railway,
Guntakal, Anantapur District. … Petitioner
And
G. Thippaiah … Respondent
*****
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.21908 of 2011
WRIT PETITION No.22234 of 2011
WRIT PETITION No.22235 of 2011
WRIT PETITION No.22237 of 2011

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.22238 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22239 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22241 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22249 of 2011 WRIT PETITION No.22252 of 2011 and WRIT PETITION No.22258 of 2011

¶7

COMMON ORDER:

¶8

This batch of ten (10) writ petitions is moved by the Estate Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal, Anantapur District, and arise out of proceedings of the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶9

2. Facts in brief are, ten different individuals are occupying extents in the range of 14 to 70 square metres at KM 441 of Guntakal. According to the petitioner all the aforesaid individuals have encroached on the land belonging to the South Central Railway and have constructed small portions and are living there. All of them were given notices under Section 4(1) of the Act read with Form ‘A’ dated 14.10.2005 calling upon to show cause why an order of eviction should not be made. But as no reply was received from any of the encroachers, final orders under Section 5(1) of the Act were passed on 04.01.2006 directing eviction of the said ten encroachers from their respective portions. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred separate appeals before the learned District Judge, Anantapur, under Section 9 of the Act and in the said appeals they adduced additional evidence viz., the replies given by each one of them to the notice under Section 4 (1) of the Act together with acknowledgments. The learned District Judge considered the appeals and was of the view that the order of eviction passed by the Estate Officer suffers from violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the replies given by the respondents were not considered. The learned District Judge,

¶10

Anantapur, was also of the view that there is sufficient reason to doubt the claim of the Railways that the property in question belongs to Railways and thereupon was of the further view that since the said disputed question as to title to the property cannot be decided by the Estate Officer, the Railways were directed to approach competent civil Court by following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh V . Thummala Krishna Rao and anothe r [1] . Aggrieved thereby, the present separate writ petitions are filed by the petitioner.

¶11

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner in all the matters, Sri K. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents in six of the writ petitions. The respondents in other writ petitions though served have not appeared through counsel.

¶12

4. The respondents have successfully established before the lower appellate court that they had in fact replied to the show cause notice dated 14.10.2005 and their detailed replies together with acknowledgements by the Railways were produced before the lower appellate court by way of additional evidence. The application for the said additional evidence I.A. No.1678 of 2008 which includes the replies, acknowledgements as well as postal receipts clearly substantiate that the respondents had replied to the show cause notice, but in ignorance thereof the initial order of eviction dated 04.01.2006 was passed. The lower appellate court is therefore clearly justified in finding that the said order of eviction suffered from violation of principles of natural justice and in order to afford due and complete opportunity to the respondents it was necessary for the Primary Authority under the Act aforestated to give opportunity of hearing the respondents and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The order of the learned District Judge, Anantapur, to that extent, therefore, does not call for any interference.

¶13

5. However, to the extent of the other contention of the learned standing counsel for the petitioner wherein the learned District Judge, Anantapur, directed the Railways to file a suit by following the decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh V. Thummala Krishna Rao and another (1 supra) appears to be wholly misplaced. The learned District Judge has noticed in paragraph 14 of the judgment that even according to the respondents the Estate Officer had issued them notice of eviction under the Act as early as in 1968 and at that time the District Collector, Anantapur, had inspected the site and had recommended the railway authorities to release the land to enable the revenue authorities to allot it as house sites. The aforesaid stand of the respondents, which was noticed by the learned District Judge itself, makes it clear that the land in question undoubtedly belongs to the Railways even according to the respondents and the Railways had already demanded the respondents to vacate the said land as early as in 1968. In that view of the matter, I am unable to see any material to uphold the finding of the learned District Judge that there was any bona fide dispute as to title of the said property. Consequently therefore the situation on facts as existed in the decision in Government of Andhra Pradesh V . Thummala Krishna Rao and another (1 supra) referred to above did not exist in the present case and as such the direction in the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge directing the South Central Railway to establish title by approaching the civil Court and then seek eviction of the respondents appears wholly unjustified. That part of the order therefore is liable to be interfered with and is accordingly set aside.

¶14

6. As a consequence of the discussion as above, all the proceedings from the stage of proceedings under Section 5(1) of the Act shall stand relegated to the Primary Authority i.e., Estate Manager, South Central Railway, Guntakal, who shall consider the replies already filed by the respondents and if they so choose, they can file an

¶15

additional/supplemental reply within four weeks from today and thereafter the Estate Manager shall consider the contentions of the South Central Railway as well as the respondents in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after due opportunity of hearing both sides. Such exercise however shall be completed within three months from today.

¶16

7. The writ petitions are therefore allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.

¶17

___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶18

Date: November 08, 2011. Note: Office to furnish copy of the order to all the parties within a week. //B.O.// BSB

¶19

[1] AIR 1982 SC 1081

Estate Manager, v. D.Srinivasulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Estate Manager, v. D.Srinivasulu

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

Anugula Rajaiah, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Smt. Margani Sireesha, Vs The Chief Passport Officer

Muthangi Balakrishna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Estate Manager, South Central Railway, Vs G.Govindu, S/o Basappa

Estate Manager, Vs Anjamma

Estate officer, South Central Railway, Gunthakal Vs G.Thippaiah