IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27479 of 2005 Between: C.M. Kesavulu … Petitioner AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Chandragiri Mandal, Chandragiri, Chittoor District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Ramachandra Raju Counsel for the respondent : AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27479 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 16.12.2005 issued in Form-A under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Un- authorized Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the Act’) for evicting the petitioner, who is in occupation of an extent of 520 square feet in Sy.Nos.57/2C and 3 of Chandragiri Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the Act apply only to public premises and even according to the allegation contained in the impugned notice, the property belongs to a cultural club. He further stated that in the said notice it is not stated that the property is a part of public premises and hence, the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the said notice by invoking the provisions of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District, it is stated that originally the land belonged to a cultural club and that the same was gifted to the Government in the year 1989 and in pursuance of the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.699, Revenue (Registration-II) Department, dated 11.07.1989. He therefore claims that the land in question is a Government land. I have considered the pleadings and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. For the first time in the counter-affidavit the respondent claimed that the property was gifted to the State Government. This ground is not taken in the impugned notice. The law is well settled that the administrative authorities cannot seek to sustain the validity of the orders passed by them on the basis of the affidavits subsequently filed. (see Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji[1] and Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others[2]) In view of the admitted fact that the respondent has not claimed the property as a part of public premises, the impugned notice is liable to be and accordingly set aside. This order, however, does not preclude the respondent from issuing a fresh notice with all the relevant details, if he claims the property as “public premises” within the meaning of the Act. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.35285 of 2005 and WVMP.No.2809 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.07.2008 ES [1] AIR 1952 SC 16 [2] AIR 1978 SC 851