Allowed

Padugupadu Pacs, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC1 Dec 2014WP/33179/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A registered co-operative sued for eviction of encroachers blocking its land and access road. The court rejected the argument that alternative land must be provided first and directed the 4th respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 98 AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 within a week.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus directing the Executive Authority to initiate proceedings under Section 98 of the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to evict encroachers within a week.

Padugupadu Pacs, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.33179 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for 3^rd respondent.

¶5

2. No counter affidavit is filed by other

¶6

respondents.

¶7

3. The petitioner, a registered co-operative society, was merged with Inamadugu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (for short ‘the Society’) in the year 2005 and consequently land of extent Ac.2.03 cts in Sy. No.427 of Inamadugu village, Kovvur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, purchased by the latter Society under registered sale deed dt.02-09-1965 became the property of the petitioner. The area of operation of the Society extends to the entire Kovvur Mandal consisting of 10 revenue villages and it is doing non-credit business in fertilizers and seeds etc. and provides service to its members who are farmers and also does paddy procurement. The petitioner society also has an extent of Ac.0.25 cts in addition to the extent of Ac.2.03 cts mentioned above.

¶8

4. The petitioner desired to construct a godown

¶9

in the subject property and has also obtained sanction from the State Level Sanction Committee for construction of a godown. The petitioner Society alleges that some persons occupied a road margin abutting to their land and also encroached some portion of the land belonging to petitioner to the extent of blocking ingress and egress to it. Petitioner Society states that in spite of complaint made to the respondents to take action for removal of encroachments on 21-03-2014, no action has been taken by the respondents. Petitioner Society submits that the time fixed for completion of the construction of the godown is six months, that the land had been handed over to the contractor on

¶10

15-09-2014 vide Resolution No.5 of the Managing Society, and unless and until the work commences, the sanctioned amount of Rs.45,00,000/- would not be released, and it would be unable to build the godown. According to the petitioner, 4^th respondent is the competent authority for removal of the encroachment since the road margin vested in the Gram Panchayat but it is not taking any action.

¶11

5. 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit admitting that there are 16 encroachers in the land in Sy. No.426 as per the inspection report of Tahsildar, Kovvur, but contends that all these persons fall under/below poverty line; that if encroachments are removed, then the

¶12

Government would have to provide suitable land to the encroachers for residential purpose; and that no suitable Government land is available for providing house sites to the encroachers. He states that necessary action would be initiated by due process of law for eviction of only 1 or 2 encroachments to provide necessary land in Sy. No.426 for lying a road to connect Inamadugu road to Jammipalem villlage so that inconvenience to the petitioner for ingress and egress to the land is avoided. It is further stated that other encroachments in Sy. No.426 would be cleared as and when alternate house sites can be provided to the encroachers.

¶13

6. It is not disputed that the land in Sy. No.426 of Inamadugu is donka poramboke and vestes in the Gram Panchayat, Inamadugu.

¶14

7. Section 98 of the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 empowers the Executive Authority of the 4^th respondent to remove encroachments on public roads. That apart, the provisions of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 2005 can also be used to by 3^rd respondent for eviction of encroachers on Government property.

¶15

8. The stand taken by 3^rd respondent that the encroachers on the public road adjacent to the petitioner’s property cannot be evicted unless they are provided alternative land is very strange. Neither the provisions of

¶16

the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 nor the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 contemplate any such rehabilitation.

¶17

9. In this view of the matter, I reject the stand of the 3^rd respondent that the encroachers are not liable to be evicted unless alternative residential sites are provided to them by 1^st respondent. Since admittedly the subject land vested in the 4^th respondent, a Writ of Mandamus is issued directing 4^th respondent to initiate proceedings under Section 98 of the AP Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to evict the encroachers mentioned in para 3 of the counter affidavit filed by 3^rd respondent, within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

10. The Writ Petition is allowed as above with costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid personally by 3^rd respondent.

¶19

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶20

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 01-12-2014 kvr

Padugupadu Pacs, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padugupadu Pacs, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

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

The Regional Manager, Vs The Presiding Officer

Smt. Tirumala Venkata Satya Mutya Veni, Vs The Accountant General (Aande)

N.Premaiah Vs Narmala Deva Raj

Mr.Mohd. Khasim, Vs Syed Rahmath Ali

Syed Jaleel Ahmed Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. N. Prameela Vs The Child Development Project Officer