THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25493 of 2010 Date:08.03.2011 Between: Smt. Vendra Satyavathi ..... Petitioner AND The Tahsildar, West Godavari District and another .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Chidambaram Counsel for Respondent No.1: - Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Raju, learned counsel representing Sri G. Elisha, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to demolish and remove the petitioner’s thatched house existing over 100 sq. yards in survey No.88/1 of Valamarru Village, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raju, learned counsel representing Sri G. Elisha, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent No.2. The petitioner claims to be in occupation of the abovementioned land for the last 20 years. That respondent No.2 issued notice dated 30.07.2010 calling upon the petitioner to remove the thatched house raised by her over the said land for handing over the same to the Panchayat Raj Department for construction of an overhead tank as a part of protected water scheme. The petitioner pleaded that the District Panchayat Officer, Eluru, in his proceedings dated 09.08.2010 directed the authorities concerned to construct overhead tank in R.S.No.53/2 of Valamarru Village and not on the land in occupation of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said proceedings, respondent No.2 is insisting on the petitioner to vacate the land. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.2, it is inter alia stated that the land in occupation of the petitioner is a Government poramboke under the control of respondent No.2 Gram Panchayat, that the petitioner is not a landless poor and is possessed of landed properties in the Gram Panchayat limits and has highhandedly occupied the Government poramboke land. It is further stated that the District Panchayat Officer in his proceedings dated 15.07.2010 directed respondent No.2 to remove the encroachments from the land in survey No.88 of Valamarru Village, that respondent No.2 vide its resolution dated 29.07.2010 unanimously resolved to remove the encroachment over the said land for handing over the same to RWS Department in public interest and that accordingly the impugned notice dated 30.07.2010 was issued. As the petitioner has not handed over vacant possession, respondent No.2 has moved respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Palkol, who initiated proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) by issuing a notice under Section 7 of the Act. It is further stated that after considering the objections filed by the petitioner, final order under Section 6 of the Act was passed ordering petitioner’s eviction and that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition suppressing the said fact. At the hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.2 placed before this Court a copy of notice dated 01.10.2010 issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector in pursuance of the order passed under Section 6 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that so far the order passed under Section 6 of the Act has not been served on his client. If an order was already passed under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to question the same by availing the remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Act. Even though respondent No.2 has not referred to the date of the purported order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Act, the notice dated 01.10.2010 issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector would give rise to a reasonable presumption that an order under Section 6 of the Act would have been passed by the Tahsildar. Respondent No.2 is directed to supply a copy of the order passed under Section 6 of the Act to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order, she shall be free to avail the remedy of appeal. To unable the petitioner to avail such remedy, status quo as on today shall be maintained for a period of one month from today. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, interim order dated 08.10.2010 passed in W.P.M.P.No.32560 of 2010 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.32560 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th March, 2011 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/o) GHN