<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (3) TMI 532 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458144</link>
    <description>Government land, including tank-bed land, remained vested in the State even after possession was handed over to another public authority for public use, so proceedings under the land encroachment law could still continue. Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was treated as a special summary power for group encroachments, but its exercise had to satisfy fairness and natural justice. Affected persons were entitled to a hearing at the appropriate stage, and where immediate action was taken, at least a post-decisional hearing was required. The District Collector had to pass the requisite order of immediate eviction; action taken only by the authorised officer was unlawful, and the eviction proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2024 12:38:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 532 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458144</link>
      <description>Government land, including tank-bed land, remained vested in the State even after possession was handed over to another public authority for public use, so proceedings under the land encroachment law could still continue. Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was treated as a special summary power for group encroachments, but its exercise had to satisfy fairness and natural justice. Affected persons were entitled to a hearing at the appropriate stage, and where immediate action was taken, at least a post-decisional hearing was required. The District Collector had to pass the requisite order of immediate eviction; action taken only by the authorised officer was unlawful, and the eviction proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>