THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13869 of 2007 Dated 21st June, 2010 Between: Vikram Exports and another. …Petitioners And The Principal Secretary, Mining and Industries and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala Counsel for respondent No.1: Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3: None. Counsel for respondent No.4: Ms. V. Dymani. The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, this writ petition is being disposed for with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have raised a structure in survey No.650/C1 and has been running a factory therein. According to the petitioners, the land on which the building was constructed was a private land belonging to them. However, by the impugned notice dated 27.06.2007, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioners to remove granite factory being run in the said premises by stating that the said factory was constructed in Donka Poramboke. It is further stated therein that if the petitioners fail to remove the same, the Government will take appropriate action for its removal. Questioning the said notice, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Marturu Mandal, Prakasam District, filed a counter-affidavit along with vacate stay application. It is, inter alia, stated therein that though the petitioners got registration from the Industries Department for establishment of an industry in survey No.313/A, the factory was, however, established in survey No.650/C, which is a Government Poramboke land and that the Industries Department also issued a notice dated 20.07.2007 to the petitioners referring the above fact and called upon them to submit explanation as to why action shall not be initiated for deregistration of the unit. It is further stated that survey No.650/C, over which the petitioners constructed the factory building, was classified as Government Poramboke land; that on coming to know about the same, the then Tahsildar issued notice dated 21.04.2007 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why action shall not be initiated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and that when the petitioners refused to receive the said notice, the same was served through substitute service by affixing the notice on the factory door, apart from sending the notice through registered post. It is further stated that as no reply was received from the petitioners, another notice was issued on 27.06.2007 to which the petitioners submitted representation stating that due to expansion of National Highway No.7, there was slight variation in location. At the hearing, there is no representation for the vacate stay petitioner. A perusal of the impugned notice does not reveal the source of power of respondent No.2 in issuing the said notice. If a person is found to be in occupation of the Government land, respondent No.2 is entitled to initiate legal proceedings under statutes such as the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The impugned notice does not appear to conform to the procedures envisaged in any of the extant enactments. While respondent No.2 is certainly entitled to take action for eviction of the petitioners, if they are found to be in possession of Government land, he is at the same time bound to follow due legal process for such eviction. Even on respondent No.2’s own showing his predecessor has issued notice to the petitioners for initiating legal proceedings for their eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. Having issued such a notice, he did not appear to have pursued the matter in that direction. Inasmuch as there is a dispute over the title pertaining to the land on which the petitioners have constructed the building and running a factory, respondent No.2 ought to have issued a comprehensive notice to the petitioners referring to the relevant material in support of his stand that they are in occupation of a Government Poramboke land. After considering the explanation, if any, filed by them, respondent No.2 should have taken appropriate action either under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, as the case may be. As respondent No.2 failed to follow this procedure, I am of the view that the impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, impugned notice dated 27.06.2007 is quashed with liberty to respondent No.2 to follow proper procedure prescribed by law for eviction of the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st June, 2010 GHN