APHC010632632012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1462 of 2012 Bench Sr.No:-36 [3552] Union of India and another ...Appellants Vs. S. Krishna Murthy and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt, Central Government Counsel Advocates for Respondents : GP for Revenue CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 18th November 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral) : The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 20.01.2011, passed in W.P.No.1713 of 2005. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the writ petition was allowed and the proceedings initiated by the railway authorities under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, were set aside. Hence, the present writ appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the stand of the petitioners before the learned single Judge was that they were granted house site pattas to an extent of Ac.0.10 Cents in R.S.No.7/2 of Mandapadu area of Gudivada Town abutting the South Central Railway line after getting permission from the Executive 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1462 of 2012 Engineer, Conversion, Gudivada, through his communication, dated 03.05.1963. 3. A reading of the aforesaid communication would show that the Executive Engineer, Conversion, was of the view that the land falling in R.S.No.7/2 was no longer useful for the Railways Department, hence, the same may be ‘relinquished’. It was further communicated to the Tahsildar concerned that the land in question could be disposed of in reference to his communication, dated 10.04.1963. The aforesaid communication of the Executive Engineer, Conversion, appears to have also been done as per the advice received from the office of the Divisional Superintendent, Vijayawada. 4. It appears that the aforementioned communication addressed by the Executive Engineer (Conversion) was pursuant to a series of communications, which had been exchanged between the office of the Tahsildar, Gudivada, and the officers of the Southern Railways seeking the NOC from the railway authorities for purposes of allotting the land in question to the petitioners. 5. We are not sure whether the assignment was at all made in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the NOC issued by the Executive Engineer, Conversion. On a reading of the prayer made by the petitioners in W.P.No.1713 of 2005, it can be seen that one of the reliefs that had been sought by the petitioners was in the nature of a Mandamus with a direction to 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1462 of 2012 the respondents to grant patta in favour of the petitioners and other consequential orders. 6. It thus appears that, in all probability, till date, the pattas have not been granted in favour of the petitioners. Be that as it may, it appears that the proceedings under the Act of 1971 were initiated against the petitioners. Form ‘A’ notice, dated 31.03.2003, was served upon the petitioners in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act of 1971. Even before the proceedings under Section 4(1) could be completed and the concerned noticees could submit their responses, Form ‘B’ notice, dated 20.12.2003, was issued under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1971. 7. When the proceedings under the Act of 1971 came to be challenged before the learned single Judge, the stand taken by the Railways/appellants herein was that it was on account of oversight that Form ‘B’ was served upon the petitioners under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1971, which was intended to be served on other encroachers as per the directions issued in W.P.No.2191 of 2004, in which the petitioners were not parties. 8. Be that as it may, when the matter was considered by the learned single Judge, the factum of the error committed by the Railways in issuing Form ‘B’ was noticed, however, according to learned counsel for the appellants, instead of restricting the challenge to the stage of Form ‘B’, the learned single Judge proceeded to hold that both Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ notices were liable to be set aside. 4 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1462 of 2012 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that no pattas at all could have been issued on the basis of an NOC issued by the Executive Engineer, Conversion, as he was not at all the authorized officer to issue any such NOC for purposes of considering the right of allotment of land, which otherwise belong to the Railways. He has brought to our notice, a policy, dated 04.10.2022, which, in our opinion, is not at all relevant as we are concerned with a stage, which was prevalent in the year, 2003, and thereafter. 10. The issue as to whether any patta in the interregnum had at all been issued and whether the Executive Engineer, Conversion, at all had any authority to grant NOC or not are left open. It would be open to the railway authorities/appellants to determine in an appropriate proceedings the issue as to whether the Executive Engineer, Conversion, at all had any jurisdiction or not and whether any patta based upon that would be non-est in the eyes of law or not. 11. To our mind, the learned single Judge did commit an error in law in setting aside both Form ‘A’ and Form ‘B’ in their entirety even when the appellant authorities had only conceded the error in issuing Form ‘B’ while the proceedings under Form ‘A’ had still not been completed. Since the issuance of the first Form ‘A’ in the year, 2003, and since the issues with regard to jurisdiction have also cropped up, in the meantime, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to allow an opportunity to the railway authorities to determine the issue of jurisdiction and other connected issues with liberty to them to 5 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1462 of 2012 initiate fresh proceedings by issuing notice in Form ‘A’ in terms of Section 4(1) and Form ‘B’ in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act, 1971, in case the appellants hold that the respondents were unauthorized occupants over the land in question. 12. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 6 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1462 of 2012 31 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.A.No.1462 of 2012 Dt: 18.11.2025 kbs