Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 495
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
C. Praveen Kumar, J.
Kolla Rama Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. No. 10146 of 2021
Decided On : 14-05-2021
V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocate, I. Koti Reddy, Advocate
The authorities cannot demolish a person's house without following due process of law, and they must provide an opportunity to the person to be heard before passing any order.
Headnote:
LAND ENCROACHMENT - ANDHRA PRADESH LAND ENCROACHMENT ACT, 1995 - SECTION 7, 7A, 10 - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 - EXPLANATION SUBMITTED - REFERENCE TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR UNDER SECTION 7A - LEGALITY - WRIT PETITION - DIRECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the demolition of his house on the ground that the land was government land, without following due process of law. A notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1995 was issued, and the Petitioner submitted an explanation. However, the authorities referred the matter to the District Collector under Section 7A of the Act, without passing any orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the action of the authorities was illegal and improper, as they failed to follow the due process of law. The court directed the concerned authority/Collector to hear the Petitioner before passing any order on the explanation given to the Notice under Section 7 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities' action in demolishing the Petitioner's house without following due process of law was legal. 2. Whether the reference of the matter to the District Collector under Section 7A of the Act, without passing any orders, was legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1995, particularly Sections 7, 7A, and 10, to hold that the authorities' action was illegal. The court held that the authorities should have passed an order on the explanation submitted by the Petitioner before referring the matter to the District Collector. The court also held that the Petitioner should be given an opportunity to file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the concerned authority/Collector to hear the Petitioner before passing any order on the explanation given to the Notice under Section 7 of the Act. The court also restrained the Respondents from demolishing or dispossessing the Petitioner from the subject land till such time.
JUDGMENT
C Praveen Kumar, J. - The present Writ Petitions came to be filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in demolishing a residential house in Plot No. 168 and 169 admeasuring 226.66 Square Yards situated in Sy. Nos. 142/18 of Krantinagar, RTC Colony, Ragolu Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District, without following the due process of law, as illegal and incorrect.
2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition show that a layout styled as "R.T.C. Colony" "Kranthi Nagar" Housing Colony was laid in an extent of Ac.10.09 cents in Survey Nos. 139 to 142 of Ragolu Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District. The said layout was approved by the 5th Respondent vide Resolution No. 2, dated 27.02.1988. The Developers of the said layout sold the housing plots in favour of several individuals through registered sale deeds and the purchasers in turn sold the same to third parties. It appears that the housing plots changed hands number of times and when the Petitioner was in possession of the same, the authorities initiated action for demolition of the house on the ground that the land where the house is built is in a government land.
3. A perusal of the averments show that a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1095 ['Act'] was issued stating that the land in an extent of Ac. 0.01 cents in Sy. No. 142-17 of Ragolu Village, Srikakulam Mandal and District, is a government land. The said notice calls upon the Petitioner to appear before the 4th Respondent on 09.04.2021 along with all the necessary documents. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner herein is said to have appeared before the 4th Respondent and submitted his written explanation enclosing all the necessary documents. It is the case of the Petitioner that without passing any order, the authorities are trying to demolish / dispossess the Petitioner from the said plot. It is alleged that a compound wall of some of the houses was also razed to ground. As action is initiated without following due process of law, the present writ petition came to be filed.
4. Heard Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Standing Counsel Sri. I. Koti Reddy, for Respondent No. 5.
5. Having regard to the urgency expressed, the matter is taken up as House Motion through Bluejeans Video Conferencing APP. With the consent of all the counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
6. Reiterating the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petition, Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the action of the authorities, more particularly, the 4th Respondent, is illegal, improper and incorrect and the same is not in accordance with law.
7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would submit that the explanation given by the Petitioners, pursuant to notice dated 01.04.2021 was forwarded to the District Collector, as the encroachments is by a group of persons for passing appropriate orders in terms of Section 7A of the Act. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the land, which is subject matter of dispute is a canal land and the Petitioner has illegally encroached upon the same.
8. Sri. V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Counsel for the Petitioner points out that when an explanation is given by every individual, referring the same to the District Collector for passing orders in terms of Section 7A of the Act would be illegal and it would deny them an opportunity of filing an appeal under Section 10 of the Act.
9. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is very much clear that a notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued on 01.04.2021, to which the Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.04.2021. It is also an admitted fact that no orders are passed till date, but, however, the 4th Respondent [Tahasildar] is s
