Full Judgment
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This Court issued rule nisi on 29-9-2006.
2. The counter affidavit, additional counter affidavit, additional documents and the reply affidavit also had been filed.
3. At the request of the Counsel on record, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally.
4. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proced.No. B/348/06 dated 27-9-2006 of the 2nd respondent as illegal and void and consequently hold that the petitioners are entitled to deal with the property in House Nos. 10-3-113/P, 10-3-32/9/114P, and 10-32-9/11/115P, by developing the same in accordance with the sanction plan of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under permit No. 51/97 in file No. 0837/CSC/TPT/2003, dt.21-8-2004 and pass such other suitable orders.
5. Sri A.Ramalingeshwar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the counter affidavit, the additional counter affidavit, the reply affidavit and also pointed out the impugned order and the documents relied upon by the parties. The learned Counsel would contend that the proceeding dated 27-9-2006 in proceedingsNo. B/348/06 of the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter, in short, referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience) cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the elaborate reasons recorded in impugned order and would submit that virtually the 2nd respondent had made an attempt to decide the title to the property and in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the predecessor-in-title and petitioners have been in possession of the property for sufficiently a long time and certain complicated questions of title also are involved and hence in view of the same, the summary proceedings initiated under the Act referred to supra cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions relating to several of the factual aspects and placed strong reliance on Govt. of A.P. v. T.Krishna Rao : [1982]3SCR500 , District Collector, Ranga Reddy District , Hyderabad and Ors. v. K. Narasing Rao and Ors. : 1997(4)ALT428 and also an order in Smt. Vimala Mehta v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Ors. W.P. No. 15883 of 1999.
6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue had pointed out to the impugned order and would submit if the possession of the petitioners as such to be taken into consideration, the same is just recent. Even otherwise, the petitioners may be entitled to regularization in accordance with law but however without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioners are resorting to the present activity which would land the public at large into trouble. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue also would contend that it may be that the impugned order is not happily worded, but however, it cannot be said that the same is without jurisdiction since, inasmuch as, the petitioners are just encroachers upon the land, the provisions of the Act are attracted and hence the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also would contend that in a way the parties are resorting to unsustainable litigations like approaching Civil Court, withdrawing the suit and the other like proceedings and in that view of the matter on the ground of suppression of facts as well, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard the Counsel.
8. The impugned order reads as hereunder:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER,
MARREDPALLY MANDAL.
PRESENT:- Sri U. RAGHU RAM SHARMA
Proced No. B/348/06 Dated:27-9-2006 Sub:- Land Marredpally Mandal - Illegal encroachment - Plot Nos. 113, 114, 115of Sy. No. 74 Marredpally village - eviction - Reg.
Ref:- Directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 15628/06.