SIDDAREDDY Vs. SUB COLLECTOR GUDUR NELLORE DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ of prohibition has been filed under misconception on the ground that the respondent who is a Sub-Collector, Gudur had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the AP Land Encroachment Act 1905. A mere look at the provisions of the Land , Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') makes it clear that it is not only the Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsidar but evea the Collector has got concurrent jurisdiction for exercising powers under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act for eviction of the encroachers from the properties belonging to the Government. Now the significance of the Tahsildars and Deputy Tahsildars defined under Section 1-A of the Act has lost in view of the constitution of mandals. Now the words 'Tahsil' and 'Tahsildar' have disappeared. The words 'Tahsil office' and 'Tahsildar' have been substituted by words 'Mandal Revenue Office' and 'Mandal Revenue Officer' respectively. Thus the Mandal Revenue Officer can exercise the power under Section 7 as also under Sec. 6 of the Act and apart from that the Collector has also got concurrent jurisdiction. The word 'Collector' does not connote that it is a District Collector and the same is defined under Sec 1A of the Act as any Officer in- charge of a revenue division and includes a Deputy Collector, a Sub-Collector and an Assistant Collector. Admittedly in the instant case the respondent is a Sub- Collector who comes within the definition of Collector as mentioned supra. As such the respondent had jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 6 and 7 of the Act and that is what he did. As the respondent has jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of AP Land Encroachment Act 1905 and to issue notice under Sec 7 and to deal further as to whether the matter warrants issuance of Sec. 6 notice, the writ of prohibition fails.

(2.) In so far as the impleaded respondent i.e. R 2 is concerned, she has got absolutely no say in the matter as the dispute is in between the petitioner herein and the first respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that the petitioner has dislodged her from thr property in question and as such she is entitled to agitate to protect her rights both before the first respondent and this court. I see no force in the contention advanced on behalf of the second respondent. If the second respondent is the real owner of the property in question and she was unduly deprived of the said property, the appropriate Forum is not either the first respondent or this court. To ventilate the above grievance the Common Law Court is only the forum. So far as these proceedings are concerned, the second respondent is absolutely an alien and even if the land encroachment proceedings go against the petitioner the first respondent is not empowered under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act to give any relief to the second respondent in asmuch as the very contention of the 1st respondent is that the property in question belongs to the Government. la any event, the first respondent is not invested with the powers of adjudicating civil disputes inter se private parties with regard to their private properties. As such I reject the contention of the second respondent. No notice need be issued by the first respondent to the second respondent and the second respondent need not be heard by the first respondent at all.

(3.) Coming to the further adjudication inasmuch as the plea of issuance of writ of prohibition is negatived by this court the first respondent is entitled to go ahead with further proceedings. To the show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already filed a reply. However a further chance is given to file a further reply within a period of four weeks from today. The first respondent shall enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders within four months after the receipt of reply considering the same along with the earlier reply, if already filed If the petitioner fails to file further reply within the stipulated time, the first respondent shall be at liberty to proceed on the basis of the material available b.;fore him It is needless to mention that inasmuch as the first respondent admits that the petitioner is in possession and on that premise notice under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act has been issued, the petitioner shall not be evicted unless notice under Section 6 of the Act is issued,