WP/23923/2005 of G.Chandraiah, Vs The District Collector, on 27 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioners 1 to 6 are residents of Chillamuru village and petitioners 7 to 13 areresidents of Ramapuram village in Chittamuru Mandal in Nellore District. They claimthat they are landless and poor persons eking out a living as agricultural labourers.They allegedly occupied land in survey No.1 of Chillamuru village, developed theland and brought it to cultivation. This happened about two years ago. They areallegedly in possession of land admeasuring Acs.1.50 to Acs.4.00 each. Theyallegedly dug seven bore wells in the land for irrigation. The land occupied by themis a government land and therefore, they filed applications in 2003 before the thirdrespondent requesting assignment of the land in their favour. These applications areallegedly pending before the third respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that thethird respondent issued notices under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act,1905 (the Act, for brevity) calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why theyshould not be evicted from the government land. These notices were served duringthe last week of March 2005. All of them submitted explanations on 28.3.2005 or30.3.2005 justifying the occupation of the government land and denying that it is aforest poramboke land. When the third respondent objected the petitioners forraising watermelon crop, the petitioners brought to the notice regarding noticesissued under Section 7 of the Act and explanations submitted by them andaccordingly third respondent dropped the proceedings. The third respondent,however, did not issue pattas and therefore, they filed the present writ petitionseeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in notgranting assignment pattas to the petitioners in respect of the land allegedly in theirpossession as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Board StandingOrder (BSO) 15. They also seek a consequential direction to the third respondent.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the land inoccupation of the petitioners is a government land and it is not a forest porambokeland. According to the learned Counsel, if the land in question is a forest porambokeland, the Mandal Revenue Officer is not competent to issue notice under Section 7of the Act. He nextly contends that after issue of the notices, the third respondent did not pass final order under Section 6 of the Act and therefore, the proceedings aredeemed to have been dropped. He relies on BSO 15 to contend that when a personis in occupation of government land and if such occupation is not objectionable, theMandal Revenue Officer is bound to consider the assignment of the land to theoccupant.

Conclusion

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) obtainedinstructions from respondents 1 to 3 and opposed the writ petition. He submits thatthe land in occupation of the petitioners is a forest land and therefore, notices wereissued under Section 7 of the Act for evicting them. After considering theexplanations submitted by the petitioners, the third respondent passed orders on04.4.2005 under Section 6 of the Act directing the petitioners to remove theencroachments and vacate the land, and these notices were served in accordancewith law on 05.4.2005 or 06.4.2005. He submits that as the petitioners were notavailable in the village, the notices were affixed on a poll near the land. Lastly, hewould urge that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy of filing appealunder Section 7 of the Act and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Thelearned Assistant Government Pleader has produced the copies of the orderspassed by the third respondent under Section 6 of the Act, which have been perusedby the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well.

If the land allegedly under the occupation of the petitioners in survey No.1 isclassified as forest poramboke land or reserve forest land, the petitioners’occupation would be illegal being objectionable. If the petitioners are evicted fromthe land, which is allegedly in their occupation till their eviction, and if the petitionersare eligible being landless and poor, their cases can be considered by the thirdrespondent, but the petitioners cannot insist upon assignment of land in survey No.1.The submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the petitionerswere already evicted from the land and possession is taken under a cover ofpanchanama is recorded. Be that as it is, the third respondent has already passedorders under Section 6 of the Act ordering eviction of the petitioners and there is noreason to disbelieve this fact of the matter.

Whether the third respondent is competent to evict an encroacher from theforest land is a question, which has to be decided having regard to the provisions ofBSO 15 as well as A.P. Forest Act, 1967. At the first instance, this can as well belooked into by jurisdictional RDO, who is constituted as an appellate authority underSection 10 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners may approach the MRO and obtaincopies of the orders under Section 6 of the Act and file appeal before the secondrespondent. The petitioners are given liberty to approach the third respondent on09.1.2006 for obtaining the copies of the orders dated 04.4.2005 passed underSection 6 of the Act. After doing so, they are given liberty to file appeal before thesecond respondent within a period of one week thereafter and the secondrespondent is directed to entertain appeal and pass appropriate orders within aperiod of four weeks after filing of the appeal.

The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordinglydisposed of. No costs.

December 27, 2005. (V.V.S. RAO,J)

NOTE:

Dispatch order copy today.

(B/o)

YS

_____________