Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Mohammed Sameer – Petitioner
Versus
The Estate Officer under Andhra Pradesh Public Premises – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6546 of 2016
Decided On : 20-08-2024
(A) Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 – Section 5(1) – Writ petition challenging eviction order – Petitioners alleged unauthorized occupation of land – Court found no discussion on framed issues in the impugned order – Citing principles from Supreme Court regarding writ jurisdiction and natural justice – Writ petition allowed, impugned order set aside, and matter remitted for reconsideration. (Paras 6, 10, 11)
Facts of the case: Petitioners, owners of property, challenged eviction notice alleging unauthorized occupation based on a complaint.
Findings of Court: The impugned order was passed mechanically without addressing the issues framed.
Issues: Whether the eviction order violated principles of natural justice and proper procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper consideration of framed issues and adherence to natural justice principles in eviction proceedings.
Result: Writ petition allowed, order set aside, and matter remitted for fresh consideration.
ORDER :
1. Heard Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
3. The case of the petitioners in brief, is that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the owners and possessors of the property to an extent of 1331 square yards (0.11 guntas) and 703 sq. yards respectively situated in Sy. No. 26, Theegalpahad village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District and they executed a registered lease deed in favour of petitioner No. 1 vide No. 7839/2011 dated 07.09.2011 on the file of Sub Registrar, Mancherial for the purpose of establishment of a factory for manufacturing of aluminum products and running the same under the name and style of MM Aluminum Industry having obtained the licenses from the concerned Departments. While the matter stood thus, respondent No. 1 issued notice under Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1968 vide Ref. No. SRP/EST/E.C. No. S/39/1011/2015 dated 08.02.2016 to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners unauthorizedly occupied the company land to the extent of 83 Sq. yards basing on the complaint of respondent No. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Perused the record.
5. A bare perusal of the record indicates the docket proceedings which are extracted herein-under:
Issued notice. Call on 20.03.2015.
20.03.2015:
Respondent No. 1 & 3 present. Sri Sathish, Advocate filed vakalath for R1 & R3. Notice for R2 affixed on the door. Awaiting acknowledgment for R2. Call on 04.04.2015 for counter of R1 & R3.
04.04.2015:
Respondent No. 1 & 3 present. Adv. for R1 & R3 requested for time for filing counter. R2 absent. Call on 11.04.2015 for filing counter.
11.04.2015:
PO is visiting Hyderabad on duty. Respondent No. 3 present. Adv. for R1 & 3 requested for time for filing counter. R2 absent. Call on 15.04.2015 for filing counter finally.
15.04.2015:
Petitioner Present. R1 & R3 called absent. Counter not filed. Right to file counter for forfeited. Posted for evidence. Call on 18.04.2015.
17.04.2015:
Petitioner present. R1 &R3 are present. Advocate for R1 & R3 filed vakalat for R2. Advocate filed on undertaking given by the R1 stating that the encroached land will be vacated at the time of widening of the road works. Call on 20.04.2015.
20.04.2015:
Petitioner present. Advocate for R1 to R3 present. Posted to 25.04.2015 for PW evidence. At request, call on 25.04.2015.
25.04.2015:
Petitioner present. R1 & R3 and their Advocate present. Petitioner filed evidence affidavit of PW-1 together with three documents filed duly serving the copies to other side. At request of Advocate for R1 & R3 posted to 30.04.2015 for cross examination of PW-1. Call on 30.04.2015.
30.04.2015:
Petitioner is present. Advocate for R1 & R3 present. Advocate demanded for filing certified copies of awards filed by the PW-1. For filing certified copies of documents, call on 08.05.2015.
08.05.2015:
Petitioner present. R1 to R3 absent. Advocate for respondents present and requested for time. At request, adjourned. Call on 16.05.2015.
16.05.2015:
Petitioner present. Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 3 present. Petitioner filed draft issues Court framed the issues. Accordingly, call on 26.05.2015 for fili
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles and proper procedural considerations in eviction proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises Act.
The High Court will not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an effective alternative remedy exists, unless there are violations of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute between the petitioners' claim as landholders and the claim of unauthorized occupation by the Estate Officer should be decided by ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
