Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1436 (AP)

KETHANABOYINA PEDDA TIRUPALU v. TAHSILDAR

2023-11-04

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

body2023
ORDER : Ravi Cheemalapati, J. The grievance of the petitioners is issuance of eviction notice under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, ‘the Act’) directing them to vacate the land without considering their explanation, without conducting enquiry and without passing detailed order. 2. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri E. Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration would submit that, the petitioners are owners and possessors of various extents of lands in Survey No.98 of Peda Obeneni Palle village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District and they have been in possession of the respective extents for the past several decades and raised cattle sheds and orange crops in the said lands. While so, the 1st respondent issued notice under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act alleging that they are encroachers, for which the petitioners have submitted a detailed explanation. Thereafter, the 1st respondent without conducting any enquiry, without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and without passing any orders, straight away issued notice under section 6 of the Act directing the petitioners to vacate the land within a period of three (03) days from the date of service of notice. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18468 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by this Court, setting aside Section 6 notice and remanding the matter to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate reasoned order on the petitioners’ explanation, affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Pursuant to the said orders, the 1st respondent issued notice darted 17.08.2023 directing the petitioners to submit explanation and accordingly the petitioners submitted explanation on the same day. Thereafter, the 1st respondent without conducting any enquiry, without passing any reasoned order by considering the petitioners’ explanation as directed by this Court, once again issued Section 6 notice directing the petitioners to vacate their respective extent of land. The said order is laconic and having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri E. Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that the subject lands are Government lands meant for public use and the petitioners have occupied them without obtaining any permission. Hence, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Sri E. Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that the subject lands are Government lands meant for public use and the petitioners have occupied them without obtaining any permission. Therefore, the 1st respondent had issued notices to the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act. Pursuantly the petitioners submitted their explanation and after considering the explanation the 1st respondent issued Section 6 notices to the petitioners directing them to vacate the subject land. There is neither irrationality nor procedural irregularity nor violation of natural justice as alleged by the petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, however submitted that if this Court inclines to interfere with the order, the authorities may be given liberty to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perusal of the material would indicate that the 1st respondent had issued noticed under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act to the petitioners directing them to submit their explanations. The record would further disclose that the petitioners have submitted a detailed explanation in response to the said notices issued under Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued notices under Section 6 of the Act directing the petitioners to vacate the lands in their respective possession. 6. The Section 6 notices impugned in this writ petition show that the said notices were issued by writing the names of the petitioners and the particulars of the property in printed pro forma. No reasoned order as required was not passed. The impugned notices further disclose that there is no reference to the said explanation, much less consideration of the same. Moreover, issuing notice on printed pro forma ex facie shows issuance of notice in a mechanical fashion without application of mind by the concerned. 7. In Kadiyala Sudershan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2013 SCC OnLine AP 596 this Court held that : “6. A person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause notice under Section 7 of me Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the land. A person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause notice under Section 7 of me Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the land. After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed under Section 6 of the Act If the competent authority is satisfied mat the person in possession of the land is liable to the evicted, he has to issue a notice in the prescribed form. Though the provisions of Section 6 of the Act do not in express terms enjoin on the competent authority to pass a speaking order, the very fact that Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice presupposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against him. Further, an appeal under Section 10 of the Act is envisaged by the Act. Unless the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal. 7. From the scheme of the Act, I am of the opinion that the notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality.” 8. The observations made above emphasizes the need of passing a reasoned order. 9. It is a well established principle of law that even an administrative order must be profused with reasons, at least in brief, so as to enable the aggrieved to know as to where they stand in the eye of law. Further, an appeal is provided as against the orders passed under Section 6 of the Act. 9. It is a well established principle of law that even an administrative order must be profused with reasons, at least in brief, so as to enable the aggrieved to know as to where they stand in the eye of law. Further, an appeal is provided as against the orders passed under Section 6 of the Act. Unless the orders passed under Section 6 of the Act contain reasons for the authority to come to such conclusion, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the orders appealed against. 10. It is also relevant here to note that, earlier, when the petitioners challenged the validity of the notices issued under Section 6 of the Act, a coordinate bench of this Court, having observed that the impugned notices does not contain any reasons and they does not even contain the reference of the explanation leave about its consideration, set aside Section 6 notices, directing the 1st respondent to pass a reasoned order on the explanation submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioners. Despite the above remarks and the directions, without adhering to the directions given by this Court, the 1st respondent issued impugned notices on a printed pro forma by filling up the blanks. As stated supra, the impugned notices do not contain the reasons as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioners does not merit consideration. 11. In view of the above, the impugned orders are ex facie illegal, having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and since they are bereft of any reasons, are unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded for fresh consideration. Therefore, there is no purpose in inviting counter, since even thereafter also the impugned eviction order passed under Section 6 of the Act does not stand for scrutiny. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Therefore, there is no purpose in inviting counter, since even thereafter also the impugned eviction order passed under Section 6 of the Act does not stand for scrutiny. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed under Section 6 of the Act impugned in this writ petition are set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for passing appropriate reasoned order on the explanation submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the notices issued under Section 7 of the Act, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. Till such exercise, the authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the subject properties. As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.