Allowed

D. Pentaiah , Pentaiah Chary, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Mar 2014WP/507/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order declaring the petitioner an encroacher and directing him to vacate land. The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter to give the petitioner proper notice and opportunity to submit his explanation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 2.1.2014 quashed; notice dated 11.12.2013 treated as show-cause notice; two weeks' time granted to submit explanation; matter remanded for reasoned order.

D. Pentaiah , Pentaiah Chary, Vs The Government of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶2

W.P. NO. 507 OF 2014

¶3

Date of Judgment: 27.3.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

D. Pentaiah @ Pentaiah Chary

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Government of A.P. and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶11

W.P. NO. 507 of 2014

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

¶14

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.1.2014 passed by the third respondent under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “the Act”) on the ground that the petitioner is an encroacher to an extent of 250 sq. mts of Government

¶15

land bearing T.S.No. 2, Block ‘D’, Ward No. 124 of Malkajgiri village, Maredpally Mandal, Hyderabad district and on the same day the petitioner was given a notice directing him to vacate the said land.

¶16

On 9.1.2014, while admitting the writ petition, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.

¶17

It appears that the petitioner was given a notice under Section 7 of the Act in File No. A/1778/2013, dated 11.12.2013 and as no explanation was filed by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed on 2.1.2014 which is challenged in this writ petition. However, the notice under Section 7 of the Act, dated 11.12.2013, issued to the petitioner, shows that the petitioner was not called upon to offer his explanation and straightaway the said notice directs the petitioner to vacate the land within seven days on the ground that he is an encroacher. As per the provisions of the Act, the third respondent is required to give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation by issuing a show-cause notice, and consider his explanation, if filed, and pass appropriate order under Section 6 of the Act. But the petitioner has not been given any show-cause notice for submitting his explanation and thereby he is deprived of an opportunity of filing explanation and as such the impugned order is in utter violation of the provisions of the Act and principles of

¶18

natural justice, and therefore, it cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is quashed and the notice dated 11.12.2013 shall be treated as a show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act and the petitioner is granted two weeks’ time to submit his explanation, if he so desires. He is also at liberty to raise in his explanation all the pleas that are available to him in law. Thereupon, the third respondent shall consider his explanation, if filed within two weeks and pass appropriate reasoned order under Section 6 of the Act after hearing the petitioner. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

_________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶20

Dt. 27.3.2014 KR

D. Pentaiah , Pentaiah Chary, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Pentaiah , Pentaiah Chary, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Kasa Tripuraiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pasumarthi Jaganmohan Rao Vs The Government of A.P.

Vegi Jagadish Kumar, Vs The State of Ap.

Peram Dasaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Guthula Lakshmana Rao S/o Venkanna, Aged 63 years, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its District Collector

Shaik Khaja Bee W/o Late Dasthagiri Sahab, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate