K. Venkateswara Rao vs The Govt. of A.P. and others

Obul Reddy

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in its Memo No. 2871/52/69-24 dated 15-6-1972 directing the Collector. Krishna, to take necessary action under the Land Encroachment Act to get the encroachment evicted byfilling the borewell with concrete. The Government also asked the Collector by this memo to report to it the action taken by biro. Pursuant to this memo, the Collector, Krishna, by his Utter dated 28-6-1972, asked the Tahsildar, Vijayawada, and the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, "to take urgent action to evict the borewell under the Land Encroachment Act by filling it with concrete" and report compliance before 31-7-1972. That led to the filing of the writ petition. The complaint of the petitioner is that before any action is contemplated under Sec. 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, notice should be given to him u/s 7 of the Act and such a notice has not been given to him. There is nothing in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to indicate that a notice under Sec. 7 has been served upon the petitioner. The counter-affidavit does not disclose that any notice as required under Sec. 7 has been served upon the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he had sunk the borewell with the permission of the Govt. and also asked for assignment of that portion of the land where he had sunk the borewell. If the respondents propose to take any action under Sec. 6, it is obligatory on their part to cause to serve a notice on the petitioner. Such a notice, from the material placed before me, does not appear to have been served. I, therefore, quash the Government Memorandum No. 2871/S2/69-24, dated 15-6-1972 and the letter of the Collector, Krishna dated 28-6-1972 directing the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, to fill the borewell with concrete. Though the Government directed the Collector to proceed under the Land Encroachment Act, it does not appear from the letter of the Collector to the Tahsildar and the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, that he had followed the procedure by issuing a notice under Sec. 7. The respondents are, therefore, prohibited from proceeding against the petitioner unless they follow the procedure laid down under the Act by first serving a notice under Sec. 7 of the Act. A direction shall issue to the respondent to issue a notice u/s 7 before contemplating any further action. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/-