HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus

declaring the proceedings No.B/WP/15202/2005, dated 08.12.2017, issued by respondent No.3 as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 300-A of Constitution of

India and consequently, to set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for Ms. G.Sindhu, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned counsel for respondent

No.4.

3. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.3 ordered the Special Revenue Inspector to evict the encroacher/appellant from the subject land and take possession of the same under the cover of panchanama. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition

is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject property having

succeeded to the same through his grandfather; that the subject property falls in TS.No.9/1, Block-B, whereas the report of the Tahsildar correlates to TSNo.25, Block-E of Mallepally, Asifnagar; that one Beequees Fathima filed Writ Petition No.13350 of 1999 to declare the action of the authorities in not making corrections in respect of land to an extent of 556 square yards in TS.No.25, Block-E, claiming to be owner of the said land and the said Writ Petition was allowed on 29.08.2007 directing the respondents therein-authorities to take necessary steps for correction of TSLRs; and that in pursuance of the said order, the Collector accorded permission to Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records to correct the TSLRs in respect of TS.No.25, Block-E.

4.1. Learned counsel further contended that the said Writ Petition No.13350 of 1999 was allowed on the basis of the reports of the Revenue and PWD Departments to the effect that the land is not owned by PWD. He further contended that contrary to the observations of this Court in WPNo.13350 of 1999 that the land in question does not belong to PWD, the impugned proceedings are issued on the ground that the land in question is classified as “ABADI”, “G-PWD”, and therefore, the impugned proceedings are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue inter alia contended that in spite of giving ample time and opportunity to the petitioner to file documentary evidence in support of his claim over the land in question, he failed to file the same, therefore, the Tahsildar has rightly passed the impugned proceedings under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) by following due process of law. He further submitted that the petitioner failed to make out any case warranting interference with the impugned proceedings.

5.1. Learned Government Pleader has principally contended that against the impugned order passed by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, remedy of filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer lies under Section 10 of the Act, however, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition bypassing the said remedy, and on that ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.

7. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to decide the maintainability of the Writ Petition.

8. Obviously, the impugned order was passed by respondent No.3-Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Act, in exercise of the powers conferred under the said Act. As per Section 10 of the Act, against a decision or order passed by a Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar under the Act, an appeal shall lie to the Collector. However, challenging the order passed by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition bypassing the remedy of filing an appeal before