Telangana High Court
WP/23248/2004 of Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (GITAM), Vs the Mandal Revenue Office, on 28 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.23248 of 2004 Between: Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (GITAM),
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWRIT PETITION NO.23248 of 2004
Between:
Gandhi Institute of Technology and Management (GITAM), Gandhinagar Campus,Yendada, Visakhapatnam,being rep. by its Secretary C.Venkataramaiah, S/o. Chinnayya, aged 68, Male,Hindu, R/o. Visakhapatnam.
..... PETITIONER
AND
The Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhpatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
.....RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toIssue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing notice under Sec. 7 ofthe Madras Act 3 of 1905 without specific allegation that any occupation is madeafter disposal of the writ petition by the division bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 183 of 2002 and also attempt to demolish the compound wall and the roadsituated within the own premises of the petitioner without weighting for passingorders on Sec. 7 notice after conducting enquiry and issuing Sec. 6 notice under thesaid Act on 13.12.2004 by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary capricious unjust andviolative of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently set-aside thenotice in R.c.No.311/.2001/A dt. 06.12.2004 and direct the respondent not todemolish the compound wall and road in dispute pending disposal of the W.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA
Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
W.P. No. 23248 of 2004
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O r d e r:
The petitioner, which is an educational institution, states that the Government ofAndhra Pradesh allotted an extent of Ac. 71-15 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 17/1 to 17/28 of Yendada village, VisakhapatnamDistrict. The petitioner having developed the said land, also constructed compoundwall around the campus. While so, some private individuals filed writ petition in W.P.No. 183 of 2002 complaining that the petitioner is in occupation and encroachmentof land in Sy. Nos. 19 (part), 29 (part), 37 and 38/1 to 38/8 of the said village. TheDistrict Collector, it is stated, in the said writ petition, filed counter that the land to theextent, which is in occupation and encroachment of the petitioner, was resumed bythe Government. Recording this statement of the District Collector, the writ petition,by order dated 27-11-2002, was closed. While the matters stood thus, therespondent issued notice dated 6-12-2004 under Section 7 of Act 3 of 1905, allegingthat it has encroached an extent of Ac.6.09 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 19(part) and 20(part), which is enclosed by a compound wall. To the said notice, the petitionerclaims to have submitted his explanation on 11-12-2004 stating that afterdemarcation of the land in 2002, it had not encroached any land, much less the landin Sy. Nos. 19 (part) and 20 (part). While so, it is the case of the petitioner thatwithout conducting any enquiry and without considering his explanation, therespondent is seeking to demolish the compound wall, which is illegal and arbitrary.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forRevenue for the respondent.
Disputing the averments made in the affidavit, filed in support of the writpetition, the respondent filed counter. However, reiterating the counter averments, itis submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that as requested bythe petitioner in the explanation submitted by him to the notice issued under Section
7 of Act 3 of 1905, which was received by respondent on 13-12-2004, therespondent after due notice to the petitioner, in the presence of the RevenueDivisional Officers and a team of Surveyors and the Executive Engineer of thepetitioner, conducted survey on 14-2-2004, and even before passing final orders, thepetitioner filed the present writ petition. In reply to the counter averments, thepetitioner filed reply-affidavit stating that a detailed survey cannot be conducted inan hour or so and it requires some time, and in fact, no survey, as alleged by therespondent was conducted on 14-12-2004. The petitioner states to resolve thedispute involved, a detailed survey in the presence of the management of thepetitioner with reference to its title deeds assisted by their qualified Surveyors, wouldbe justified.
Though the petitioner inter alia assailed the notice dated 6-12-2004 issued by the respondent under Section 7 of Act 3 of 1905, and thoughthe respondent contended that, he in fact, had already conducted the survey of theland on 14-12-2004, at the time of hearing the matter, the learned GovernmentPleader for Revenue in view of the averments made by the petitioner in the reply-affidavit that survey be conducted with reference to the title deeds of the petitioner,agreed for conducting survey of the land afresh with reference to the title deeds ofthe petitioner. In view of the agreed stand taken by the parties, I deem it appropriateto dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:
The respondent shall conduct survey of the land in question afresh with reference tothe title deeds of the petitioner, with the assistance of the Surveyors, in the presenceof the petitioner or its nominee, duly intimating the petitioner, by way of notice, of thedate on which the survey would be conducted, and after conducting the survey, heshall furnish a copy of the survey report to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondentshall consider the explanation already submitted by the petitioner to the impugnednotice, and pass appropriate orders and take action in accordance therewith. Till theabove exercise is undertaken, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitionerfor its eviction. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order that may be passed by therespondent, he is at liberty to challenge the same, if so advised. No costs.
_________________
Date: 28th December, 2004
KSR
..... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Mandal Revenue Office, Visakhpatnam Rural Mandal,Visakhapatnam District.Visakhapatnam District.
2. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, High Court of AP, Hyderabad (OUT)
3. Two CD copies.