IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 28129 of 2005 Between: Madhava Projects Engineers and Contractors Formerly Sripasa Engineering Company A Registered Partnership firm having it Office at 48-9-18/29/1, Ratnaveni Complex Dwaraknagar, Visakhapatnam rep.by Partner Chinta Sasidhar S/o C.Visweswara Rao R/o 1259, Lakshmi Towers, Road, No. 36 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Anakapalli Mandal Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 29-12-2005 passed by respondent No.2, whereby he directed eviction of the petitioner from an extent of Acs.4.00 in Survey No.211/1 of Vooderu Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, under the provisions of Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner applied for grant of quarry lease in Survey No.211 of Vooderu Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District for quarrying road metal and building stone over the extent of 3 hectares. The said application was considered by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology and lease granted vide his proceedings dated 26-06- 1996. Another extent of 18 hectares was given to the petitioner on lease for the above mentioned purpose. The petitioner located a stone crusher unit after obtaining permission from the Factories Department on 24-06-2000 and the consent order by the Pollution Control Board under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The petitioner claimed that the said consent order, which was being renewed from time to time, was valid up to 30-11-2005. The Mandal Revenue Officer inspected the petitioner’s premises on 18-12- 2005 and insisted on supply of the necessary documents. The petitioner averred that the staff attached to the petitioner furnished all the documents required by him. However, the said Officer issued notice dated 21-12-2005 under Section 7 of the Act on the allegation that the petitioner encroached into an extent of Acs.4.00 of land in Survey No.211/1. The petitioner submitted his representation on 27-12- 2005 wherein he denied the allegation of his encroachment and requested for 20 days time to submit a detailed reply on the ground that the Managing Partner of the firm was abroad. However, without granting any such time, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order under Section 6 of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is, inter alia, admitted that the petitioner was granted quarry lease by the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam, in respect of Survey No.211/1 under the provisions of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. He, however, maintained that the said lease was granted for the purpose of quarrying road metal and building stone and that the petitioner erected stone crusher over an extent of Acs.4.00 unauthorizedly without obtaining permission from the Revenue Authorities in terms of Board Standing Order No. 24 and hence, proceedings under the Act were issued against the petitioner and an order was passed under Section 6 of the Act. A perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No.2 alleged therein that the petitioner encroached the schedule land (Acs.4.00). However, as noted above, in the counter-affidavit, respondent No.2 did not persist with the said allegation and come out with a varied version stating that over the extent of Acs.4.00, which forms part of the land for which he was granted mining lease, the petitioner erected a stone crusher without permission from the Revenue Authorities. In my considered view, the said ground, which is not even reflected in the impugned order, cannot be made basis to initiate proceedings under the Act. Under Section 7 of the Act, if the competent authority is satisfied that a person is in unauthorized occupation of Government land, he is entitled to give a notice and direct eviction of such unauthorized occupant under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, sine qua non for exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Act, is that the authority should be satisfied that the person is in unauthorized occupation. From the averments contained in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that the ground on which the provisions under the Act were initiated and eviction order is passed is that the petitioner unauthorizedly erected a stone crusher. In my considered view, the said ground can never constitute a basis for initiating proceedings under the Act. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law, if they so choose for the alleged unauthorized erection of stone crusher. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 20th June, 2008 vrn