IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 737 of 2005 Between: 1 R. Venkateshwer, S/o. Rajaiah, R/o. Asifabad Village, and Mandal, Adilabad District. 2 Smt. Pinna Prameela @ Pramala, W/o. Late Namdev, R/o. Asifabad Vill& Mandal, Adilabad District. 3 M. Vidyasagar, S/o. M. Bapu, R/o. Asifabad Vill & Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Asifabad, Adilabad District. 2 The Joint Collector, Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.VINOD KUMAR DESHPANDE Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash proceedings, dated 12.01.2005 issued by respondent No.1 purportedly under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. This case has got a chequered career. The dispute pertains to an extent Ac.3.00 of land situated in Asifabad Village. On the ground that the same is a Government property, the then Tahsildar issued proceedings in the year 1985 under the Act for eviction of the petitioners. Questioning the said order, the father of petitioner No.3 filed L.R.A.No.1 of 1985 before the Sub-Collector, Asifabad. While dismissing the said appeal, the Appellate Authority by order, dated 03.08.1989 directed respondent No.1 to regularize the encroachment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.4975, Revenue (L) Department, dated 10.12.1980 instead of evicting the petitioners. Accordingly, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 16.08.1990 whereby he regularized the petitioners’ possession. Later, respondent No.1 passed order on 20.11.1991 cancelling the earlier order of regularisation. Evidently, questioning the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2. Apprehending threat of dispossession, the petitioners filed W.P.No.11639 of 1992, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 14.09.1992 with the direction to respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners on 21.05.1992, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the order. This Court also stayed the dispossession of the petitioners pending the appeal. While the fact remains that the said appeal is still pending, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 12.01.2005 purportedly under Section 6 of the Act whereby the petitioners were directed to vacate the land in question within seven (7) days, failing which, they will be forcibly evicted. This order is questioned in this writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the appeal filed by the petitioners is pending before respondent No.2, it was not permissible for respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings under the Act once again. He further submitted that the proceedings said to have been issued under Section 6 of the Act have not been preceded by any notice under Section 7 of the Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue stated that though the record does not reveal that a separate notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued immediately preceding the impugned order passed under Section 6 of the Act, in view of the undisputed fact that in the year 1985 such a notice was issued, there was no need for respondent No.1 to issue a fresh notice under Section 7 of the Act. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The undisputed fact is that possession of the petitioners was regularized by respondent No.1 on 16.08.1990 and the order cancelling the said regularization by the same authority is the subject matter of appeal before respondent No.2. The further fact remains that though this Court while directing stay of dispossession till the disposal of the appeal, ordered for disposal of the appeal itself by respondent No.2 within a period of four (4) months as far back as 14.09.1992, respondent No.2 has not disposed of the appeal so far. When the appeal is pending, in which the legality or otherwise of regularization made in favour of the petitioners is required to be determined, I am at a loss to know how respondent No.1 can again purport to initiate proceedings under the Act. If the appeal is decided in favour of the petitioners, they will be entitled to enjoy the property without any hindrance. Conversely, if the petitioners fail in the appeal, it would be open to respondent No.1 to recover possession from the petitioners by following due procedure without passing any fresh order under Section 6 of the Act. In my considered view, respondent No.1 failed to apply his mind to the factual situation and hastily passed an order under Section 6 of the Act. The illegality in passing the order by respondent No.1 is further confounded by the fact that no separate notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued before passing the said order. It cannot be denied that whenever an order under Section 6 of the Act is passed, it shall be preceded by a notice under Section 7 of the Act. Respondent No.1 failed to follow this procedure. On all these grounds, the impugned order cannot be sustained and hence, the same is quashed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that respondent No.2 made over the appeal to the Sub-Collector, Asifabad before whom the same is pending. I fail to understand why either respondent No.2 or the Sub-Collector did not dispose of the appeal despite a direction having already been issued by this Court in the year 1992 and lapse of more than 16 years. The ground sought to be pleaded for non-disposal of the appeal, namely, the petitioners’ addresses have not been properly given, is unacceptable for the reason that respondent No.1 was able to successfully serve on the petitioners the impugned order passed under Section 6 of the Act. If the petitioners’ addresses were not known, it would not have been possible for respondent No.1 to serve the impugned order on them. The Sub-Collector, Asifabad, is therefore, directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioners within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after service of notices on the petitioners. Since it is pleaded that the petitioners’ addresses are not known, they are directed to appear before the Sub-Collector, Asifabad within a period of two (2) weeks from today. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. C.V.NARAGJUNA REDDY, J 11th June, 2008. kvni