Point of law: According to Section 12-A of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 the powers of revision authority are limited and the revision authority may call for the records either suo motu or on the petition of either of the parties, examined the correctness, regularity, propriety and illegality of the order, but cannot improve the case either of the parties.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for entire records connected to the order, dated 18.07.2019 in Revision Petition No.22021/63/2017-ASSG-III-Rev., passed by the 1st respondent, dismissing Revision Petition filed by the petitioner assailing the order in Rc.H.1250/2017, dated 7.7.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent in appeal preferred against the order passed by the 3rd respondent for removal of alleged encroachment of house and site bearing D.No.1-70 in Sy.No.58/2 of Gopuvanipalem Village in Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District, examine the same and set aside both orders, declaring the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and rules framed there under.

2. The case of petitioner is that he is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the house and site bearing D.No.1-70 covered by Sy.No.58/2 of Gopuvanipalem Village, Pamidimukkala Mandal, Krishna District, which is his ancestral property. The house and site property was allotted to the share of his father by name Y.Venkatanarayana Rao under partition deed, dated 13.09.1957. In the said partition, the subject property was allotted to the share of petitioner during the year 1989. While constructing RCC building in the said property, for the convenience of petitioner, he constructed an internal partition wall separating cattle shed and open land for the maintenance of cattle and for keeping the cattle away from the residential house. The Gram Panchayat, Gopuvanipalem Village assed the RCC building to tax and cattle shed with a single D.No.1-70. Since then the petitioner has been paying tax regularly to the Gram Panchayat both for the building and cattle shed and continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same.

3. While the matter stood thus, Gopuvanipalem Gram Panchayat issued a notice, dated 21.04.2015, alleging that the petitioner raised a construction on the village tank bund covered by Sy.No.58/2 of Gopuvanipalem Village and directed the petitioner to remove the construction within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of the notice with a threatened action to remove the construction. In case of his failure to remove the same within the specified time, they will recover costs from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12753/2015 to set aside the notice and the writ petition was filed only against the Gram Panchayat, wherein interim status quo order was granted by this Court. But, the 3rd respondent, who was acting at the instance of the political motivated villagers, issued notice in Form-VII under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Rc.B.1201/2015, dated 03.12.2016 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation with a threatened action to evict him under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The notice issued by the 3rd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another, AIR 1982 (SC) 1081 for the reason that the petitioner and their ancestors were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, but without considering any of the submissions in the written explanation submitted by the petitioner passed the order which was challenged before the 2nd respondent, who in turn confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respondent.

4. The 3rd respondent again issued another notice on 30.07.2021 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 calling upon the petitioner to submit his objections, if any, with a direction to vacate the property. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent along with the stay petition on 27.02.2017, since it was not disposed