1 APHC010194872019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8428/2019 Between: 1. MD.ABDUI SALAM,, S/O.M.A.AMEER JANI, AGED 35 YEARS, R/O.8- 17-27, ISMAIL STREET, VINCHIPET, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, , VIJAYAWADA-10 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notice No.140T dt.29-03-2015, issued by 6th respondent as illegal, 2 capricious, high handed, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitiond under Art.14, 19(1)(g), 21 and guaranteed under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful physical possession and continuous enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of land of 120 sq.yars in 14-1-19A, Sambamurthy road, Vijayawada,(NTS 1013, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada) in any manner including dispossession, IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Notice No.140T, dt.29-03-2015, issued by the 6th respondent including the dispossession of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the W.P., Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THOTA RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FORESTS (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents in issuing notice No.140T dt.29-03-2015, issued by 6th respondent as illegal, capricious, high handed, violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitiond under Art.14, 19(1)(g), 21 and guaranteed under Article 300 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful physical possession and continuous enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of land of 120 sq.yars in 14-1-19A, Sambamurthy road, Vijayawada,(NTS 1013, Gandhi Nagar, Vijayawada) in any manner including dispossession….” 2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the notice bearing No.140.T, dated 29.03.2015 wherein the petitioner was directed to vacate the land in N.T.S.No.1013, to an extent of 120 square yards of Sambamurthy road, Vijayawada town, Krishna District, which is in his possession and enjoyment, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is in occupation of a land to an extent of 120 square yards (hereinafter referred to as the „subject property‟), which is classified as Ryvus canal poramboke, for more than fifty years. While so, the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna district has filed L.G.C.No.62 of 1991 under Section 8(1) of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act against the petitioner and others, alleging that he has grabbed 120 square yards of land in NTS No.1013-A of Vijayawada town and sought for evacuation. 4 4. In the aforesaid application filed by the Sub-Collector, the respondents therein (possessors of the subject land), though have contested the matter, the Special Court, under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, vide order dated 24.11.1992, allowed the application by holding that the respondents therein are land grabbers and has directed them to remove the structures and to deliver vacant possession of the land to the Sub-Collector. Aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents therein filed W.P.No.1054 of 1993 before this Court, wherein, a Hon‟ble Division Bench of this Court, passed the following order on 06.06.2000: “Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, we feel Rs.4,000/- per sq. yard would be reasonable, which can be fixed as market value of the land in dispute. Hence, this petitioner is disposed of directing the respondents to regularize the possession of the petitioners within two months from the date of this order on their paying Rs.4,000/- per sq. yard for the area in their occupation positively. The petitioners to tender market value at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq. yard on or before 31-8-2000 without expecting or insisting any notice from the respondent-authorities. The respondent-State shall execute a deed of regularization within two months from such payment. The measurement of the area in occupation shall be completed before the deed of regularization and that too in the presence of both the parties.” 5. The aforesaid order has attained finality and accordingly, as the petitioner was in possession of the subject property, he paid requisite amount as directed by the Court in the aforesaid order, by way of a demand draft in favour of Sub- Collector, Krishna District, towards market value, within the stipulated time. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite paying the market value, the respondents have not regularized the possession of the petitioner and have not executed a deed of regularization. However, the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the said land. 5 6. While the matter stood thus, the respondents vide notice No.140.T, dated 29.03.2015, has directed the petitioner to vacate the subject property and to handover the same to Irrigation Department. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed the present petition. 7. When the writ petition came up for admission on 04.07.2019, this Court has directed both the parties to maintain status quo. 8. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner has encroached an extent of 120 square yards without obtaining any lease or permission from the competent authorities. It is further stated that after verification of the records available with the irrigation department, no record was found with respect to the amount allegedly paid by the petitioner by way of a demand draft in favour of Sub-Collector, Krishna district towards market value to the total extent of land in which the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment. As per Rivers and Canals Act, 1863 (Act 35 of 1863) Part-2 Section 69(1), no person shall erect or place within 100 feet of open canal, any dwelling house, camp of laborers, privy, distillery or other manufactory etc. As per G.O.Ms.No.271, WR (WRG:GRC) Department, permission was accorded for inclusion of Ryves canal into National waterways-4 by conducting hydro-graphic and techno-economic surveys for optimum use of waterways, as such, it would not be possible to lease/sale of the disputed land to the petitioner. 9. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per G.O.Ms.No.101, Irrigation and CAD(PW-LA-I)department, dated 03.06.2005, the Government has decided that the vacant land in the heart of the city is to be utilized for 6 connectivity of roads and parks and if any of the irrigation land which was previously given on long term lease to private individual, no further extension shall be given on expiry of such lease. It is further stated that it is not possible to consider the proposal of the petitioner for allowing him to be in possession of the land located on the right bank of Ryves canal in NTS No.1013-A of Vijayawada urban. As such, requested to dismiss the present petition. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of a land to a an extent of 120 square yards, which is classified as Ryvus canal poramboke, since time immemorial. The fact whether the petitioner has paid requisite fee by way of a demand draft in favour of Sub-Collector, Krishna district towards market value to the total extent of 120 square yards of land in which the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment is not in dispute, but, when the petitioner is in possession of the subject land for over 50 years, the respondents, ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. When the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law as per the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.R.s. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs1. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioner‟s peaceful possession and continuous enjoyment of the land in NTS No.1013 of Gandhi 12004 (1) SCC 769 7 Nagar, Vijayawada urban, Krishna district, without following due process of law and without the adhering to the principles of natural justice. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :13.08.2025. Gss