IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. Rajani, J.
K. Ranga Rao and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
WP No. 14374 of 2020
Decided On : 26-08-2020
ENCROACHMENT - ANDHRA PRADESH CHARITABLE AND HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS & ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1987 - SECTION 83 - PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF ENCROACHERS - APPLICABILITY TO UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS - INTERPRETATION OF DEFINITION OF 'ENCROACHER' - NOTICE TO BE SERVED ON ENCROACHER BEFORE DISPOSSESSION - PROTECTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS FROM SUMMARY EVICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, unauthorized occupants of land belonging to a religious institution, challenged the proposed public auction of the land and their dispossession without following due process under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (the Act).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners, despite being encroachers, were entitled to protection under the Act and could not be dispossessed without following the procedure laid down in Sections 83 to 85 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, as unauthorized occupants, could be considered encroachers under the Act. 2. Whether the respondents could dispossess the petitioners without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 83 to 85 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the definition of 'encroacher' under Section 83(1) of the Act and held that it included any person who unauthorizedly occupied land belonging to a religious institution, regardless of whether they had a lease, mortgage, or license. 2. The court emphasized that even encroachers were entitled to due process and could not be summarily evicted without following the procedure laid down in Sections 83 to 85 of the Act, which involved serving a notice on the encroacher and providing an opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents not to conduct the public auction or dispossess the petitioners without following the procedure under Sections 83 to 85 of the Act.
ORDER :
T. Rajani, J.
1. This petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in proposing to conduct the public auction of the land admeasuring Acs. 25-53 cents situated in Survey No. 316/2, Bodavada Mandagunta, Pachuru Mandal, Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. The Counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land without following any due process of law as is laid down in Sections 83 to 85 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act") by conducting an auction for the land. The petitioner is an encroacher, admittedly. But his contention is that even in respect of an encroacher, the Act prescribes a procedure for encroachment. On the other hand, the contention of the Government Pleader is that the petitioners cannot be termed as Encroachers as they unauthorisedly occupied the land without any lease or licence.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the understanding of the definition of the term, 'Encroacher', which is made under the explanation to Section 83(1), is misconceived by the Government Pleader. The explanation to Section 83(1) describes any person, who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him, as an encroacher. The Government Pleader by reading the second part of the definition of Encroacher endeavours to impress upon this Court that it is only a person, whose lease, mortgage or licence is not cancelled or extended, can be termed as an Encroacher.
5. Section 83 of the Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this Chapter the expression 'encroacher' shall mean any person who unauthorisedly occupy any land or building or space and deemed to include any person who is in occupation of the land or building or space without the approval of the competent authority sanctioning lease or mortgage, or licence and also a person who continues to remain in the land or building or space after the expiry or termination or cancellation of the lease, mortgage or licence in respect thereof granted to him or it.
(2) Where, on a perusal of the report received by him under sub-section (1), the [Endowments Tribunal] finds that there is a prima facie case of encroachment, [ft] shall cause to be served upon the encroacher a notice specifying the particulars of the encroachment and calling on him to show - cause before a certain date why an order requiring him to remove the encroachment before the date specified in the notice should not be made. A copy of the notice shall also be sent to the trustee of the institution or endowment concerned.
(3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall be served in su
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.