IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14188 OF 2010 Between: G.Krishna Yadav … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The petitioner assails the order dated 18-06-2010 issued by the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, directing demolition of the structures in the land admeasuring 66 Sq.yards in Survey No.84, Mallapur Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also the taking over of the possession of the said land thereafter. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 21-06-2010, suspended the impugned order. 3. The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1905), to the petitioner in respect of the subject land. The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 25-05-2010. The impugned proceeding dated 18-06- 2010 was ostensibly passed by the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, under Section 6 of the Act of 1905, though no reference was made therein to the statute or the provision under which it was issued. However, reference was made to the show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1905 and the explanation submitted thereto by the petitioner. If the impugned order dated 18-06-2010 is to be construed as one passed in exercise of powers under Section 6 of the Act of 1905, an appeal would lie thereupon to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy, East Division, under Section 10 thereof. However, the impugned order reflects that not only the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, but also the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District were involved in the exercise by the primary authority, the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal. Specific mention is made of the endorsement dated 16-06-2010 made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, directing demolition of the constructions made by the petitioner in the subject land. 4. The manner in which the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, went about exercising powers under Section 6 of the Act of 1905, practically rendered the appellate remedy provided to the petitioner an exercise in futility. Needless to state, the hierarchy of statutory authorities must independently exercise their mind so as to protect the sanctity of the process. The case on hand presents an aberration in this regard. The impugned order dated 18-06-2010 is accordingly set aside. This, however, shall not preclude the Revenue Authorities from initiating action afresh under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905, against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. The Writ Petition is allowed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17-03-2011. KVS/BSB