The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural safeguards in eviction cases under the Land Encroachment Act, ensuring that rights to appeal are respected.

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders passed by respondent No.3 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act (for short “the Act”) vide order No.B/685/2012, dated 05.07.2012 in respect of H.No.1-109 (Old) / H.No.8-1-124/1 (New), Mylardevapally Village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad. A consequential prayer is sought to direct the respondents not to interfere in the said subject house.

2. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. The facts giving rise to file this Writ Petition are that the petitioner claims that his grandfather was possessor of land in Survey No.166 correlated old Survey No.144, admeasuring Ac.14-36 guntas situated at Mylardevapally, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabad. During his lifetime, he had constructed a dwelling house on land admeasuring Ac.0-25 guntas and the remaining land was used for cultivation. The petitioner’s father has inherited the said property after the demise of his grandfather. Later, the petitioner’s father passed away in the year 1998 leaving behind the petitioner as legal heir. It is further submitted that the petitioner father’s name was also shown in the revenue records as occupant and the land was demarcated and ryotwari patta was issued in favor of his father. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction against respondent Nos.1 and 3 vide O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same has been transferred to the learned X Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

4. The petitioner further submits that his father constructed a house over the land bearing H.No.1-109 (Old) / H.No.8-1-124/1 (New) by obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat to an extent of Ac.0-25 guntas out of Ac.14-36 guntas. The respondent No.3 issued notice to the petitioner’s father under Section 7 of the Act, 1971, dated 22.03.1993 stating that he was unauthorizedly occupying the Government land, to which, his father gave reply on 13.04.1993. Without considering the same, a memo dated 24.04.1993 was issued for eviction. The said memo was questioned by the petitioner’s father in W.P.No.5732 of 1993. However, the said Writ Petition is dismissed directing the respondents to issue notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1971. The respondent No.3 has issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act, 1971 on 18.04.2012, to which, the petitioner has given reply. Without giving any further opportunity and personal hearing, the respondent No.3 passed orders under Section 6 of the Act, 1971 on 05.07.2012 by giving 24 hours time to vacate from the dwelling house. Questioning the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.2 under Section 10 of the Act, 1971 on 13.07.2012. The respondent No.3 passed the orders directing the petitioner to vacate the house within 24 hours. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

5. This Court on 23.07.2012 passed the following order:

“After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and on perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the Tahsildar, Bandlaguda Mandal, who passed the order and resorted to demolition, acted contrary to law.

In the order passed on 05.07.2012, the Officer clearly mentioned that an appeal against the same lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. However, he gave 24 hours time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The record discloses that in W.P.No.5732 of 1993, way back on 26.07.1996, this Court recorded a clear finding to the effect that the petitioner constructed house in