ORDER:

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, questioning the action of respondents in proposing to demolish the thatched house of petitioner bearing D.No.2-82 in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Vakatippa village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, without recourse to law, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to procedure, consequently direct respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.0.09 cents along with house therein bearing D.No.2-82.

2. The petitioner is claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property since long time, having purchased the same under registered document bearing No.1767 of 1959, the petitioner is economically poor person, he raised construction and assigned D.No.2-82, the encroachment if any is not objectionable, but respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

3. Respondents filed counter contending that the land where the house bearing No.2-82 is in existence is “Gramakantam”, the petitioner is an encroacher. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Whereas the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record written instructions dated 22.02.2020, alleging that petitioner is an encroacher, raised thatched house. Therefore, 4th respondent issued notice under Sections 7 and 6 of A.P Land Encroachment Act to remove the encroachment from the land in S.No.483/1 in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents on 07.01.2020 and 28.01.2020 respectively, the petitioner is having RCC building bearing assessment No.178 and D.No.2-82 and tax receipts filed by him belongs to building. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Undoubtedly petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, even according to the allegations made in the written instructions dated 22.02.2020 and in view of alleged issuance of notices under Sections 7 and 6 of A.P Land Encroachment Act, describing the petitioner as encroacher. 2nd respondent also contended that petitioner encroached Gramakantam land. Hence, the possession of the petitioner in the land in Sy.No.483/1 is not in dispute. Similarly, raising construction therein is also an undisputed fact. Even the contention of respondents is accepted that the land is classified as Gramakantam, as per revenue record, the same vests on Gram Panchayat on its constitution in terms of Section 53 of A.P gram Panchayat Act, 1994. Therefore, it is totally under the control of Gram Panchayat and Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue notices under Sections 7 and 6, except by divesting the land from Panchayat, vesting on the government by issuing Gazette notification under Section 58 (2) of the Act. As on date no such notification as mandated under Section 58 (2) of the Act is issued divesting the land from Gram Panchayat, vesting on the government by following necessary procedure. Therefore, issuance of notices under Sections 7 and 6 of A.P Land Encroachment Act by 4th respondent itself is an illegality and it is not the procedure contemplated to evict the person who encroached Gramakantam land. When the notices are illegal, ex-facie, the recourse taken by 4th respondent to evict the person in unlawful possession is illegal and without jurisdiction, it cannot be said to be the procedure as per law.

6. The Gram Panchayat though raised specific contention that land in occupation of petitioner is Gramakantam and it is unauthorized occupation and described him as encroacher. When Gram Panchayat admitted that petitioner is in possession, Gram Panchayat alone is competent to evict the person in illegal occupation by following procedure. But till date no notice was issued to the petitioner to vacate Gramakantam land by Gram Panchayat. In the absence of any notice for removal of unauth