Allowed

Marlapati Seetharamaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal

Telangana HC30 Dec 2015WP/42549/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned order under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, because it was passed without notice to the petitioner. The authority wrongly assumed a pending writ petition was still active. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after notice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 28.11.2015 is set aside and the matter remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration after following due process.

Marlapati Seetharamaiah Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.42549 OF 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

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

¶5

The petitioner questions the resumption order, dated 28.11.2015, Ex.P1, passed by the Tahsildar, Santhamaguluru Mandal, Prakasam District, the 4^th respondent. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by W.P.No.24979 of 2015, which was disposed of on 20.08.2015 directing the 4^th respondent therein to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner, if any action is intended to be taken against him. Thereafter, a notice was given to the petitioner proposing to resume the land and an order under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for shot, ‘the Act’) was passed. The same was again questioned by the petitioner in W.P.No.32288 of 2015 and on finding that the said order was an unreasoned order, the same was set aside by order, dated 27.10.2015, which is as under:

¶6

“…. As the purpose of calling for explanation from the petitioner in response to the notice under Section 7 of the Act has not been fulfilled, as there is no consideration of the explanation of the petitioner, while passing order under Section 6 of the Act by the fourth respondent, there is no option but to set aside the impugned order passed under Section 6 of the Act by the fourth respondent and remit the matter to the fourth respondent for fresh consideration. The fourth respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 04.09.2015, on merits, after notice to the petitioner and then pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law.”

¶7

Earlier, pending W.P.No.32288 of 2015, there was an interim order, dated 05.10.2015, staying eviction of the petitioner. However, with the aforesaid final order, dated 27.10.2015, the Writ Petition itself stood disposed of.

¶8

The present impugned order, dated 28.11.2015, giving reasons under Section 6 of the Act is, however, passed by the 4^th respondent on an assumption that W.P.No.32288 of 2015 is still pending, as is evident from the impugned order itself. Though the said Writ Petition was disposed of almost two months earlier, apparently the 4^th respondent was not aware of the same and the direction therein, as extracted above. As a result, the present impugned order giving reasons under Section 6 of the Act is passed without notice to the petitioner.

¶9

Since the earlier order, as extracted above, is required to be complied with by the 4^th respondent, there is no option for this Court except to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the 4^th respondent for fresh consideration, so as to comply with the directions given in W.P.No.32288 of 2015.

¶10

However, at the request of learned Government Pleader for Revenue and in order to avoid problems arising out of service of notice, as directed above, to the petitioner, with the consent of both parties, the date of hearing is fixed as 25.01.2016, on which date the petitioner shall appear before the 4^th respondent and the 4^th respondent shall hear him and then pass appropriate fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶11

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶13

shall stand closed.

¶14

____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J

¶15

30.12.2015 Note:- Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) KH

Marlapati Seetharamaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marlapati Seetharamaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented 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

Y.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Y. Marthaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by

Smt.Dumani Bayakka, Vs The Tahsildar

Kunja Kumari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principle

Sri. Siripangi Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Sunkara Satyanarayana S/o. Rosaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pidugu Gunakar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana