IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.512 of 2000 Between: Kilaru Venkateswara Rao and five others. . … Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N.Vijay. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignments). This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to drop all further proceedings in pursuance of notices dated 27-12-1999 issued under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “the Act”) and declare that the Act has no application to the lands in occupation of the petitioners. By way of amendment, the petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue D-Form pattas for the assigned lands. The petitioners claimed to have been granted provisional orders in their favour assigning Ac.4.00 cents to each one of them in Survey No.13 of Thangudunbilli village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, by the Tahsildar of Bheemunipatnam, on 18-4-1982. In this Writ Petition, they assailed the individual notices issued to them by the Mandal Revenue Officer of Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on 27-12-1999. The main plea of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the provisional assignment orders, they have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the lands in question and, hence, the notices issued under Section 7 of the Act are without jurisdiction inasmuch as the provisions of the said Act apply in cases where a person is in unauthorized occupation of the land. The petitioners filed an application for amendment of the Writ Petition, which was allowed by this Court today by a separate order. In the said amendment, they sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to grant DKT Pattas in pursuance of the provisional assignment orders passed in their favour on 18-4-1982. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, while maintaining that he is not aware of the alleged provisional assignment order, respondent No.1 stated that there is no practice of issuing provisional assignment orders and that his office does not contain any file pertaining to those provisional assignment orders. He further alleged that the petitioners are only benami occupants; that the lands are under the control of Sri D.Kishore Babu, Clerk in Visakhapatnam Port Trust and that the entire litigation is being done at his instance. He stated that though notices were issued under Section 7 of the Act, no orders have been passed in view of filing and pendency of this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterated the averments contained in the affidavit, as noted above. The question whether the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the land or not, depends on the finding whether the provisional assignment orders, purported to have been issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 1982, are genuine or not. If it is found that they are genuine, the question of invoking the provisions of the Act does not arise because the petitioners cannot be treated to be in unauthorized occupation. On the contrary, if it is found that the said provisional assignment orders were never issued in favour of the petitioners, initiation of proceedings under the Act becomes lawful. Since the parties are at issue regarding this question, it is not possible for this Court to delve into the said issue and give a finding, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I find it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to respondent No.1, who shall adjudicate the issue whether the provisional assignment orders said to have been issued in favour of the petitioners were issued and they are genuine, with reference to the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in response to the impugned notices issued under Sections 7 of the Act the petitioners filed their explanations. In view of the same, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the said explanations and decide the issue mentioned hereinabove after giving a notice and opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. Depending upon the finding rendered by respondent No.1 on the issue of provisional assignment notices, he shall decide whether to proceed further in pursuance of the notices issued under Section 7 of the Act or drop further proceedings. If it is found that the petitioners were granted provisional assignment orders as claimed by them, he shall consider granting of pattas and if he finds any legally sustainable objection for granting such pattas, he shall pass a reasoned order therefor. If, on the other hand, it is found that no provisional assignment orders were issued in favour of the petitioners, respondent No.1 shall be free to proceed further under the provisions of the Act. Subject to these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Till respondent No.1 completes the proceedings initiated under the Act, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question. ---------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27-06-2008 MNR