An administrative eviction order issued under the Land Encroachment Act is procedurally invalid if the authority fails to formally consider and address the explanation submitted by the occupant in response to the show-cause notice.

ORDER :

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.4 in issuing the Eviction order vide Rc.(A) 284/2022 dated 15.09.2023 under Section 6 of AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and Order under Section 145 of CRPC dated 03.07.2023 without considering explanation as illegal and arbitrary and against the orders of this Hon’ble Court in WP No.18955 of 2015 dated 13.12.2022 and consequently to suspend the Order dated 15.09.2023 and Order dated 03.07.2023 by directing the Respondent 4 to not to interfere the peaceful possession of the petitioner land in an extent of Ac.2.89 cents situated at Showlahalli village, Mantralayam Mandal and pass such other order or orders…..

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar issued vide proceeding in RC No.284/22 dated 15.09.2023, wherein, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner herein to evict the land in Survey No.19/B1A to an extent of Ac.2.89 cents of Showlahalli village, Mantralayam Mandal, inter alia observed that if the petitioner unauthorizedly reenters and occupies the above land, which is already evicted, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to Rs.1000/- or with both U/Sec-6(3) of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The said order was under challenge on the ground that the petitioner has offered explanation to the notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 03.07.2023 and the 4th respondent has not considered the explanation and delivered the impugned proceedings. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings and to remand back to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to pass afresh orders, after considering the explanation officered by the petitioner dated 11.07.2023.

3. On careful consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, it is emphasised that the petitioner is having land in Sy.No.19/B1A to an extent of Ac.2.89 cents in Showlahalli village, Mantralayam Mandal and DKT Patta was granted in R.Dis.No.50/DAR/10/95 dated 05.10.1995 and previously his ancestral are also in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 2015, when the 4th respondent threatened to evict the petitioner from the possession, the petitioner filed W.P. No.18955/2015. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 13.12.2022, directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land without following due process of law. Without considering these aspects, the 4th respondent has passed impugned proceedings under Section 6 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents would submit that the Government has issued pattas to the unofficial respondents herein and they are in possession of the property. The 4th respondent admitted that the petitioners are in the possession. Therefore, the contention raised by the unofficial respondents that they are in the possession of the property is far from the truth.

5. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar has filed the counter affidavit and it is stated that the necessary enquiry was conducted in the village, and the unofficial respondents who are the beneficiaries i.e. house site patta holders, who attended the enquiry and stated that they are ready to occupy the house sites allotted to them, if the Government come forward to handover the possession of the land. The statement that “the allegations of the petitioner’s