THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The appellant herein is a third party who files this appeal under section 15 of the Letters Patent, after obtaining leave which has been granted by this Court as per the orders in WAMP No.2174 of 2007 dated 20.12.2007. The appellant herein is aggrieved against the orders of the learned single Judge in W P No. 13198 of 2007 dated 19.11.2007 at the instance of the respondents 4 and 5 who are writ petitioners. The brief facts which gave rise to these proceedings are that in the writ petition filed by respondents 4 and 5 it is their case that they are the owners of land in survey No. 121/3 to an extent of Ac.1.14 cents situate at Konithiwada village, Veeravasaram mandal, West Godavari district, where they are running a rice mill under the name and style of Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill. However, some third parties have encroached on the road margin of Veeravasaram to Penumantra road which exists in front of the property belonging to them and raised constructions on the road margin and let out the shops for businesses like wine shop, hotel and tea stalls etc and collecting huge rents there from. Therefore it was a complaint of the writ petitioners that such encroachments have to be removed. Similar is the grievance of the second petitioner who claims to be the permanent resident of the said village and reiterates about the illegal encroachments made by the third parties which is now active center of the village. Even though several complaints were made for removal, no action is taken. It was pointed out that in a civil proceedings at the instance of the Satyanarayana Rice Mill in O S no. 303 of 1983 on the file of the I Additinoal District Munsif, Bhimavaram, which was initially dismissed by orders dated 18.7.1989, however, in appeal the same was allowed as per the judgment in A S No. 36 of 1989 dated 3.12.1997 and even an attempt made by the defendants to file a second appeal in S A (SR) No. 53126 of 1998 which was dismissed on 22.9.1999 by this Court. Therefore it only confirms the factum of encroachments. The said encroachers filed W P No. 6459 of 1992 as against the action of their eviction from the road margin and the same was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court as per the orders dated 9.9.2002 authorising the authorities to take action in accordance with law after giving notice. The same was reiterated again in W P No. 1006 of 2007 which was dismissed on 5.2.2007 and also another writ petition in W P No. 7309 of 2007 which was dismissed on 10.4.2007. In view of these and other checkered events and especially having regard to the illegal encroachments made, it is the case of the petitioner that the same required to be removed, hence the writ petition. Before the learned single Judge initially an order was passed on 29.6.2007 directing to remove all the said encroachments in road margin within certain period (in survey No. 77), however at the instance of the writ petitioners an application is filed in WPMP No. 29058 of 2007 seeking amendment of the said order by substituting survey no.76 vide survey no.77. The learned single Judge by taking into account the fact that the encroachments as per survey no.77 were already removed and there being no impediment as such in ordering amendment, same was ordered and ultimately the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to clear the encroachments on the road margin comprised in survey no.77, East of Veeravasaram to Penumatra road at Km 4/6 near Navduru village, Veeravasaram mandal, West Godavari district within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of such order. Aggrieved thereby, the case of the appellant is that even though, the appellant is an affected person, he was not impleaded nor had any opportunity of contesting the case, there was no notice of these proceedings and since the order affects his claim, the same is liable to be set aside. Further, it is reiterated in the grounds of appeal that even to take an action against encroacher as provided under A P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 , a prior notice is contemplated under section 7 and an enquiry, followed by a final order under section 6 thereof. Even as against such final orders, an appeal is provided. Whereas, without giving any such opportunity or notice, the authorities are proceeding in terms of the orders of the learned single Judge, hence, the appeal. Having considered the detailed submissions made across the bar by Mr K L N Swami on behalf of the appellant, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Mr Govind Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, the point which crops up for attention is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, the appellant is entitled to any indulgence ? There is no serious dispute in regard to the fact that there exists encroachments in respect of the land as alleged by the writ petitioners and in fact in terms of the said order passed earlier, in regard to R S No. 77 the encroachments appears to have been removed as stated on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 herein. It is only now the direction is against the encroachments made in survey no.76, East Veeravasaram, West Godavari district . It is not the case of the appellant that they have any individual, independent, propriety right, title or interest of whatsoever nature. He is also an encroacher. No doubt, they are claiming to be in possession and what-all their grievance is only providing a notice and following the procedure contemplated under the law, especially under the provisions of A P Land Encroachments Act, 1905. There cannot be any dispute in regard to such procedure to be followed before taking any action against any encroacher. The direction given by the learned single Judge was to remove the encroachments but not dispensing with any such procedure as against any such encroachments including the appellant. The procedure has to be necessarily followed by giving due notice under section 7 of the Act and hold an enquiry by giving opportunity and pass ultimate orders under section 6 of the Act. If any orders are passed against, it is always open for such parties to prefer an appeal as provided under law. Having regard to these observations made and necessary follow up due process is contemplated, it is not necessary to go into the correctness or otherwise of the claims set forth by the parties. Subject to above observations, we do not find any merits to interfere with the orders of the learned single Judge in respect of removal of encroachments on the road margin as directed. The appeal is dismissed, however, no costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J ______________ R KANTHA RAO,J DATE:5-08-2009 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2007 Date: 08-2009