IMPORTANT POINT
The PPE Act allows for eviction of unauthorized occupants, but due process and natural justice must be observed in such proceedings.

ORDER :

Challenging the Orders dated 07.08.2023 passed by the 4 respondent/Estate Officer under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (hereinafter referred to Act’), these writ petitions have been filed on various grounds.

For the sake of convenience, the basic facts in W.P.No.21064 of 2023 are referred to.

2. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.21064 of 2023, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit may briefly be stated thus:

The petitioner and her ancestors are in peaceful possession of an extent of 357.42 sq.yds., situated in Survey No.533/5, Door No.1-1-28, Ward No.2, Bapatla Town. Originally the petitioner’s husband’s grandfather one Mr.Kaligiri Chengiah purchased the said property vide registered Document No.541/1952 dated 09.04.1952 and in a family partition, the above said property fell to the share of petitioner’s father-in-law, who gifted the same to the husband of the petitioner vide Document No.3579/2009 dated 22.09.2009. The petitioner’s husband with a view to construct a residential building in the said property, requested the 5th respondent vide letter dated 01.12.2009 to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ for construction of a residential building near Railway boundary and the same was approved vide Letter dated 03.02.2010, with a condition that “16.15 meters of clear gap should be maintained from the centre line of the nearest track to the nearest edge of the proposed residential building as shown in the approved site plan No.B/WNOC/01/2010.” Thereafter, the petitioner’s husband made an application dated 04.02.2010 to the 6th respondent (Sic. 7th respondent) seeking approval of the building plan and vide proceedings dated 10.02.2010, the 6th respondent (Sic.7th respondent) approved the same. Thereafter a residential building was constructed in terms of the approved plan, without any deviation. The petitioner’s husband died on 14.01.2014 and her name was mutated in the records and the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the said property and paying the property tax etc.

3. While things stood thus, the 4th respondent issued Form-A Notice No.B/W.274/I/BPP/Land dated 04.07.2023 under Sub-Section(1) and Clause (b) (ii) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the PPE Act and called upon the petitioner to appear before him on or before 11.07.2023 to show cause why an Order of eviction should not be passed. The petitioner attended the personal hearing, as the 4th respondent had given a deaf ear to the submissions made by her, a letter through Registered Post on 14.07.2023 along with the relevant documents was sent and the same was received by the 4th respondent on 17.07.2023. Thereafter, the 4th respondent issued Form-B Notice dated 07.08.2023 under Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the PPE Act, which is the subject matter of challenge.

Contentions:

4. Mr.Saranu Phani Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the said proceedings/notice is contrary to Law and not sustainable. He submits that the very invocation of the provisions of the PPE Act is not tenable and the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submits that to the Form-A Notice dated 04.07.2023, the petitioner submitted a Reply dated 11.07.2023 and without considering the same, the impugned Form-B Notice dated 07.08.2023 was issued. He submits that though the impugned proceedings/Notice refers to a joint survey by the authorities, no intimation, much less a notice in respect of the same was issued to the petitioner and the survey was conducted without any opportunity and behind the back of the petitioner.

5. Referring to the averments in the counter-affidavit and denying the participation of the petitioner in the said survey, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s husband constructed a residential building as per the plan approved by the 7th respondent-Municipality, and the plea that the construction was made contrary to the ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued b