ORDER:

Challenging the legal validity of the impugned order, dated 30.01.2023, passed by the 2nd respondent, the instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the 1st respondent; and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, appearing for the 2nd respondent.

3) The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of 24 x 35 feet situate in Survey No.301/2 of Puttur Town, Tirupati District. He has been doing a petty business in running a fancy store in a shed erected in the said land and eking out his livelihood.

4) Whileso, earlier a notice dated 05.01.2023 was issued by the 2nd respondent Municipality to the petitioner alleging that he has encroached on to the said land and sought to evict him from the said land. The said notice was issued under Sections 189 and 192 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. The petitioner challenged the validity of the said notice in W.P.No.790 of 2023 before this Court. This Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the petitioner to treat the notice dated 05.01.2023 as a show-cause notice and submit his explanation and directed the 2nd respondent Municipality to pass appropriate orders after considering the said explanation that may be filed by the petitioner and take a final decision on it and ordered not to take coercive steps till the said process is completed.

5) As directed by this Court in the above Writ Petition, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said notice, dated 05.01.2023, inter alia, contending that the land in question, which is in his possession, is a Grama Kantam land and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for a long time and thereby got title to the said property and that the municipal authorities cannot seek to evict him from the said land, which is classified as Grama Kantam.

6) Not satisfied with the said explanation, the 2nd respondent Municipality passed the impugned order dated

30.01.2023 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction and sought for his eviction from the said land in question.

7) Challenging the legal validity of the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the explanation of the petitioner that the land in question is classified as Grama Kantam and that the 2nd respondent Municipality has no jurisdiction or authority or competence to pass the impugned order, is not considered and that no reasons are assigned in the impugned order, dated 30.01.2023, to order for removal of the unauthorised construction and to evict him from the said land.

8) When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 06.02.2023, to a pointed question as to what is the primary evidence that is produced by the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the land in question is classified as Grama Kantam and it is not within the municipal limits of the 2nd respondent Municipality, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to produce evidence. Accordingly, the matter is posted to this day. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a downloaded copy of the 1-B Adangal showing that the land covered by Survey No.301/2 is classified as Grama Kantam, which is in the limits of Puttur Mandal and on the basis of the said document, it is sought to be contended by him that the land is still shown as Grama Kantam.

9) Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent Municipality, would contend that the petitioner himself has stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the said land is in Puttur Town, which is within the limits of the 2nd respondent Municipality and it clearly indicates that the land is within the municipal limits and it is not a Grama Kantam. He would submit that all vacant lands within the muni