WP/4207/2020 of Lagudu Ravi Babu, Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 December 2024

Conclusion

ORDER:-

Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

2. The writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the 3[rd] respondent/Tahsildar dated 08.02.2020.

3. It is contended that the paternal grandfather of the petitioner was Village Munsif. During 1933, by virtue of his official status, the petitioner’s grandfather was asked to stay in the village and vide proceedings dated 17.05.1933 of the Sub-Collector, was asked to construct a residential house by 31.07.1933 and reside in it. It is contended that vide notice dated 08.11.1937, the petitioner’s grandfather was asked to show cause as to why he should not evicted from the subject land. Thereafter no further proceedings have been issued pursuant to the notice issued under Section 7 of MadrasLand Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “the Act”). It is contended that in 2019, the respondents tried to dispossess the petitioner, without notice. He made a representation to the authorities on 03.12.2019 and approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.20132 of 2019. The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to dispose of the representation. The said representation was disposed of vide order dated 08.02.2020, challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The petitioner vide his representation dated 03.12.2019 has represented to the authorities that their grandfather was directed to reside in the village vide proceedings dated 16.05.1933. while so the Government vide proceedings dated 30.08.1938 issued notice under Section 7 ofthe Act. However, no final proceedings under Section 6 of the Act were passed. It is contended that the impugned order of the respondents is not supported by any reasons. The petitioner has traced his possession over the subject property to the proceedings of the Government of 1933. He refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and others[1].

“8. It seems to us clear from these provisions that the summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by Section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorized

occupation of any land which is "the property Government". In regard to property described in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2, there can be no doubt, difficulty or dispute a to the title of the Government and, therefore, in respect of such property, the Government would be free to take recourse to the summary remedy of eviction provided for in Section 6. A person who occupies a part of a public road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like is in unauthorised occupation of property which is declared by Section 2 to be the property of the Government and therefore it is in public interest to evict him expeditiously, which can only be done by resorting to the summary remedy provided by the Act. But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary eviction on the Government limits that power to cases in which a person is in unauthorised occupation of a land "for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3”. Section 3 in turn, refers to unauthorised occupation of any land "which is the property of Government". If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belong to it and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title”.

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the facts which raise a bonafide dispute of title between the government and the occupant must be adjudicated by courts of law and the decisions on the said encroachment/ occupation cannot be taken unilaterally in its own favour. Further observed that duration of occupation is also relevant having regard to the fact that the person who is in occupation of a property for an appreciable length of time can be taken prima facie to have a bonafide claim over the property, which has to be adjudicated following due procedure under law. In the present case, the petitioner’s grandfather was in possession of the property since 1930’s. In support of their claim the petitioner has relied on the proceedings of 1933.

The Tahsildar justifies the action taken against the petitioner for vacating the schedule property by tracing his authority to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act in 1933, which is not sustainable under law, in as much as the proceedings initiated in1933, if not culminated into a final order, cannot be continued from thestage where it has paused in the past, after 85 years.

Relying on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

6. Relying on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and others, order impugned in the writ petition is not sustainable and the same is set aside.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Date:31.12.2024

ANI

____________________________________

JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION No.4207 of 2020

Date:31.12.2024

ANI