Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 724 (AP)

Lagime Nagamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-11-01

BATTU DEVANAND

body2021
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural development appearing for Respondent No. 1, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for Respondent No. 2, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondent No. 3 and Sri. V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 and perused the material available on record. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent issued D-form Patta dated 25.12.1976 allotting the land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy. No. 270/1 of Gadela Village, Obulavaripalle Mandal, Kadapa District in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is eking out her livelihood by cultivating the same. The name of the petitioner was entered into the Revenue Department records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of her vide Katha No. 1143. The petitioner planted Mango and Banana Garden in the said land and the Mango trees are aged about 30 years. The petitioner availed crop loan from the Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank, Obulavaripalle Branch. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these facts establish that the petitioner has been in possession of the subject land for the last 40 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent issued notice dated 29.09.2021 vide R.C. No. GV-Puram/PS/2021-22 to the petitioner directing her to vacate the land to an extent of Ac. 5.50 cents in Sy. No. 270, Gadela Village, Obulavaripalle Mandal, Kadapa District. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that without issuing any prior notice or without following any due process of law, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice and sought to set aside the same by allowing this Writ Petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri. V. Vinod K. Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the subject land is Irrigation Department land and the petitioner is an encroacher. The Survey was conducted by Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kodur, Mandal Surveyor and Village Assistanst on 14.09.2021 and 26.09.2021 and noticed boundaries of the said land. As per the said survey report, it is found that the petitioner encroached the land to an extent of Ac. 5.50 cents in Sy. No. 270, Gadela Village, Obulavaripalle Mandal, Kadapa District. The Survey was conducted by Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Kodur, Mandal Surveyor and Village Assistanst on 14.09.2021 and 26.09.2021 and noticed boundaries of the said land. As per the said survey report, it is found that the petitioner encroached the land to an extent of Ac. 5.50 cents in Sy. No. 270, Gadela Village, Obulavaripalle Mandal, Kadapa District. To protect the Government Land, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned notice and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the 3rd respondent allotted the land to an extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in favour of the petitioner in the year 1976 by issuing D-form Patta. The pattadar passbooks and other documents filed along with this Writ Petition also proves the possession of the petitioner over the said land. 6. Upon careful perusal of the impugned notice dated 29.09.2021, it appears that the survey was conducted. Pursuant to the report of the survey, the 4th respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner encroached the land to an extent of Ac. 5.50 cents in Sy. No. 270 and accordingly, directed the petitioner to vacate the said land. Nowhere in the notice it is stated that show-cause notice was issued in favour of the petitioner calling for her explanation pursuant to the survey report. It appears that the alleged survey was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. Though there is some discrepancy with regard to the Survey Number, the truth will come out, if the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling for her explanation and to submit relevant documents to prove her possession and title over the said land. But the 4th respondent without following the said procedure issued the impugned notice dated 29.09.2021. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, though the impugned order is styled as ‘notice’ for practical purpose, it is an ‘order’ directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land. Issuing an order against the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice/affording opportunity prior to that is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 8. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, though the impugned order is styled as ‘notice’ for practical purpose, it is an ‘order’ directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land. Issuing an order against the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice/affording opportunity prior to that is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice. 8. For these reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned notice dated 29.09.2021 is unsustainable as it is issued against to the principles of natural justice and it is liable to the dismissed. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 29.09.2021 is set aside. No costs. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.