IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 1911 of 2005 Between: Karumuri Srikantham Reddy, S/o. Late Subba Reddy, Mallukunta Village, Hamlet of Vallampatla, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND Mandal Revenue Officer, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings of the respondent in R.O.C.No. 72/2005(A) dated 05-02- 2005 in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.3.30 in S.No. 329 of Vallampatla Village, T. Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal and void and consequently quash the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner inherited Acs.45.00 in survey No.329 of Vallampatla Village from his father around 35 years ago. He has two sons and a daughter. He settled an extent of Acs.13.00 on each of them and retained an extent of Acs.6.00 for himself. Vallampatla was originally a jamindari village and a patta was issued to the petitioner’s father on abolition of the jamindari. According to the petitioner, an extent of Acs.3.30 cents also found part of the total land and continued in his father’s possession and thereafter, in the petitioner’s possession after the demise of his father. The petitioner asserts that the respondent issued a certificate on 03.06.2004 to the effect that the extent of Acs.3.30 cents is in petitioner’s occupation since the past 30 years and that he is raising paddy in the said land. The certificate was issued on request for the purpose of obtaining an agricultural loan. The revenue authorities issued a pattadar pass book to the petitioner and the Gram Panchayat of Vallampatla also passed a resolution, dated 31.10.2002, certifying that the said land was in the petitioner’s occupation. Since the time of his father, for more than 60 years, the Gram Panchayat has no objection to the petitioner’s use of the land. The petitioner alleges that the respondent on 21.12.2004 issued a notice to him under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (for short ‘the Act’) alleging that he is an encroacher. The petitioner assailed the notice, dated 21.12.2004, in W.P.No.24809 of 2004. This Court on 20.12.2004, disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation to the respondent, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment copy. The petitioner received the copy of the judgment on 03.02.2005. The respondent having received the order copy earlier, issued a notice, dated 01.02.2005, directing the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner claims to have submitted explanation on 05.02.2005 enclosing certain documents as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government of A.P. Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao[1]. Thereupon, the respondent passed the impugned order, dated 05.02.2005, on the very day the petitioner had submitted his explanation, directing his eviction under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 (for short ‘the 1968 Act’). The petitioner assails the order on several grounds, principally (a) that the impugned order discloses a total non-application of mind as the order purports to exercise power under the provisions of the 1968 Act, which is inapplicable for encroachment of agricultural land and (b) that the respondent has not at all dealt with the several grounds urged by the petitioner in support of his request not to proceed further in the matter, particularly under the provisions of the Act, and by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thummala Krishna Rao’s case (supra). This Court by an order, dated 08.02.2005, granted interim stay of dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question. The respondent has also filed W.V.M.P.No.1317 of 2008 seeking vacation of the interim order. At the hearing of the application to vacate the stay, the learned Government Pleader states that though an application for vacating the stay has been filed, the counsel is satisfied that the impugned order itself is unsustainable as there was no application of mind what-so-ever to the appropriate provisions of the Statute to be invoked for evicting encroachers from agricultural land. There was also no application of mind discernable in the impugned order to the several objections urged by the petitioner against the initiation of process under the Act. In the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that the learned Government Pleader for Revenue has fairly conceded the fundamental fallacy and irrelevancy including non-application of mind in the issuance of impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order is unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed. Since the respondent has exercised responsible functions irresponsibly and thereby occasioned avoidable prejudice to the petitioner and has also imposed an avoidable load on the docket of this Court, this Court considers it appropriate to impose costs in an amount of Rs.2,500/- payable by the respondent to the petitioner. It is open to the State to initiate an enquiry against the Officer found responsible and to recover the costs imposed herein, after following the due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 02-05-2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} [1] AIR 1982 SC 1081