HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 1 APHC010324972020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21515/2020 Between: Katari Raghavamma ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 2 ORDER:- 1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dt.17.09.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent in confirming the order dt.18.01.2020 passed by the 4th respondent. 2. The facts of the case is as follows:- 3. it is the case of the petitioner that her ancestors were in possession of land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-15 cents in Sy.No.49/9 and Ac.0-26 cents in Sy.No.49/11 and Ac.0-03 cents in Sy.No.49/10 since four (04) decades. The said property was inherited by the petitioner, her mother along with her sisters and subsequently through Registered Partition Deed dt.15.05.2025 vide document No.1513/2015, the subject land fell to the share of the petitioner. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said partition, her name was mutated in the revenue records by the 4th respondent on 31.03.2016 and issued pattadar pass books and title deeds in her favour. 5. While so, the 4th respondent in exercise of powers conferred under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 issued notice to the petitioner HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 3 dt.26.12.2019 alleging that she is in unauthorized occupation over the lands in dispute. 6. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner made a representation to the 4th respondent stating that by virtue of registered Partition Deed dt.15.05.2015 she came into the possession of the subject lands which fell to her share and upon enquiry the 4th respondent also mutated her name in revenue records by issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds and therefore, she cannot be treated as an encroacher and requested to drop all further proceedings pursuant to notice dt.26.12.2019 issued by the 4th respondent. It is further contended by the petitioner that without appreciating her case in proper perspective, the 4th respondent passed order dt.18.01.2020 stating that the subject lands belong to the government and the same was never allotted either to the petitioner or to her ancestors and directed to cancel the pattadar pass books issued in her favour by treating her as encroacher. 7. Assailing the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the 3rd respondent. A report was called for from the 4th respondent and relying on the said report, the 3rd respondent HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 4 passed order dt.17.07.2020. Questioning the order dt.17.07.2020 and order dt.18.01.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.3 & 4 respectively, the present writ petition is filed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 9. Perused the material available on record. 10. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent has no jurisdiction to issue notice under Land Encroachment Act, inasmuch as the petitioner is in lawful possession of the subject lands and her possession is also recognized by the respondents by issuing pattadar passbooks and title deeds by duly mutating her name in the revenue records. The petitioner also filed the same to show her possession over the lands in dispute. The counsel for petitioner would further contend that in view of recognition of the possession of the petitioner, the respondents ought not to have exercised powers under Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and further contended that the same is without jurisdiction. HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 5 11. Per contra, the 4th respondent filed counter affidavit stating that as per RSR the subject lands are classified as Anadheenam (AWD) and the same is identified for distributing house site pattas under “NAVARATNALU PEDALALANDARIKI ILLU” scheme. It is further stated that the petitioner has encroached upon the said land and no assignment was granted in her favour over the lands in dispute. It is further contended that the petitioner might have obtained pattadar pass books by misrepresenting the facts and therefore the pattadar pass books issued in her favour is liable to be cancelled. It is further contended that as the petitioner is in illegal and unauthorized possession and therefore, the respondents have rightly invoked the provisions under Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 & 4 and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 12. The counsel for petitioner would contend that the respondents have no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in view of the fact that the petitioner is in lawful possession and the same is recognized by the respondents, who issued pattadar pass books in her favour by mutating her name in revenue records. Therefore, he contends HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 6 that by no stretch of imagination she can be termed as encroacher. In support of his contention, the counsel for petitioner relied on Judgment reported in Digivinti Subramanyam Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh1, whereunder, this Court held that when a person is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, it is the obligation of the State to approach competent Civil Court and obtain relief for eviction. 13. The said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand inasmuch as the respondents are disputing the possession of the petitioner over the subject lands. Further, it is an admitted fact that no DKT patta was issued either to the petitioner or to her ancestors at any point of time. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in settled possession as the respondents clearly contended that she is not in possession and by misrepresenting the facts she obtained pattadar pass books over the subject lands. 14. Though the respondents have disputed the possession of the petitioner over the subject lands, but on perusal of the material filed along with the writ petition, it is clear that the 1 2022 2 ALT 475; 2021 0 Supreme(AP) 966 HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 7 respondents issued pattadar pass books by mutating the name of the petitioner in revenue records as against the subject lands. Further, on perusal of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that the petitioner might have obtained pattadar pass books by misrepresenting the facts. Further, on perusal of the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 & 4, it is clear that the said authorities without considering the explanation offered by the petitioners came to conclusion that she is an encroacher. 15. Further the 3rd respondent completely relied on the report submitted by the 4th respondent while deciding the appeal and did not consider the grounds raised in the said appeal. As of the case of the petitioner is not considered in its proper perspective, the order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the grounds raised in the appeal were not at all adverted to and there is no independent application of mind as the 3rd respondent solely relied on the report of the 4th respondent while passing the order. In view of the same, the order dt.17.07.2020 passed by respondent No.3 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 8 16. It is needless to mention that the 3rd respondent is directed to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No orders as to costs. As sequel pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 05.03.2025 DR HTCDS,J WP_21515_2020 9 129 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WP No.21515 of 2020 Date 05.03.2025 DR