Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J
1. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent in R.C.No.593/2023, dated 12.10.2023, seeking police aid to evict the petitioner from his agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents situated in Sy.No.839 of Kanavaram Revenue Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the appeal before the 2nd respondent as illegal, irregular, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently suspend the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar in R.C.No.593/2023, dated 12.10.2023 and to direct respondent Nos.4 to 7 not to interfere with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land.
2. Heard Sri Manchala Solomon Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K. Dileep Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Metta Sapthagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. With the consent of learned counsel representing both parties, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at this admission stage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 28.07.2023, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 04.08.2023. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this court in W.P.No.20051 of 2023 wherein, the respondent No.4 i.e., the Tahsildar, Rajanagaram Mandal, is directed to pass orders considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner within time frame. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.4 passed order under Section 6 of the Act, dated 08.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Collector (respondent No.2) on 04.09.2023. In turn, the District Collector endorsed the same to the respondent No.3 – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, to look into the matter. Pendency of an appeal before the 2nd respondent, now Tahsildar i.e., respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the Police to provide police aid to evict the petitioner on 27.10.2023 at 11.00 A.M.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner’s family has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the last 40 years. Placing reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tummala Krishna Rao’s case, learned counsel would submit that comprehensive enquiry need to be done in case of long possession over the land, but not summary enquiry as mentioned under Board Standing Orders. Learned counsel prays the court to order status quo as on this day till the disposal of the appeal, before the District Collector.
6. Refuting the submissions made supra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 would submit that respondent No.4 initially issued notice under Section 7 to the petitioner. After considering his explanation, passed proceedings under Section 6 of Act, ordering him to evict from the subject land. The subject land is a Kaluva Poramboke, which cannot be assigned to any individual. The efforts made by respondent No.4 to get the eviction of petitioner from the subject land become in vain due to the resistance from petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.4 sought police aid. Meanwhile, the respondent No.3 directed the Tahsildar to look into the matter. The ratio in the judgment of Tummala Krishna Rao, has relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that even in re-settlement register, the subject land is shown as Kaluva Poramboke, if the court is inclined to pass order of status quo, let there be a direction to the petitioner not to make any alterations in the subject land.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that they have received proceedings from Respondent No.4 to provide police aid, they will obey orders of this court.
9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that an appeal is pending before the District Collector – respondent No.2, which was endorsed to respondent No.3 – the Revenue Divisional Officer. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 has to take a decision over the appeal presented by the writ petitioner. Hence, it is apposite to direct both parties to maintain status quo as on this day pending appeal.
10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to both parties to maintain status quo as on this day and respondent No.3 is further directed to treat the representation made by the petitioner as appeal under Section 10 of the Act and dispose of the same as per the governing rules and law. Let respondent No.3 issue notice to the writ petitioner and conduct the enquiry and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner according to law. No costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
