IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11461 OF 2010 BETWEEN: M.V. Appa Rao S/o. late M.V. Rao and others …. Petitioners AND The Tahsildar, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District and others. …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11461 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 67 in number, with a prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ and quash the proceedings No.B/1550/1997, dated 23-04-2010 relating to survey Nos.123, 125 and 126 of Lalaguda Village, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District. 2. The order impugned in this writ petition is the one passed by the Tahasildar, Marredpally Mandal, Hyderabad District exercising powers under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as to the maintainability of the writ petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that though the order impugned in this writ petition is an appealable one under Section 10 of the Act, the writ is maintainable since the appellate authority is none other than the District Collector, who challenged the orders passed in a batch of Writ Appeals by filing Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in respect of the self same survey numbers. A further submission has been made that the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the Writ Appeal made an observation that the Government cannot resort to summary proceedings but will have to resort to the proceedings under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or in a Civil Court by establishing its title, or in case it admits the title of the writ petitioners, be proceeded in accordance with law. 5. Learned Senior Counsel laid much emphasis on the Paragraph No.9 of the common judgment passed in Writ Appeal No.1195 of 2004 and batch, which reads as hereunder: “9. We are not deciding in the instant proceedings about the nature of the rights of the parties as to whether the writ petitioners are having valid title to the property or whether the land is or is not a Government land or is a patta land. We have made our observation on the basis of the stand taken by the Collector in his affidavit wherein it is not disputed that the writ petitioners are in occupation and raised construction on the land and it is also not disputed that the writ petitioners are claiming title on the basis of title deeds of the year 1981 onwards. Under these circumstances, even if the government would take a stand that it is a Government land and has right to evict the writ petitioners who have no title to these lands, it cannot resort to summary proceedings but will have to resort to the proceedings as indicated by us in our judgment, namely, under the provisions of A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or in a Civil Court by establishing its title, or in case it admits the title of the writ petitioners, be proceeded in accordance with law.” 6. The judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above writ appeal and batch has been challenged in the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5274 of 2006. 7. The Special Leave Petition came to be disposed of on 02-04-2009. The relevant portion of the order passed in the above Special Leave Petition is reads as under: “The grievance of the petitioner-State is that it cannot be restricted to take action against the alleged encroachers only under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or by approaching Civil Court. It is submitted that if action under law could be taken either under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act or any other relevant statutes, the State should not be prevented from taking recourse in accordance with law. A careful reading of para 9 of the order of the Division bench makes it clear that what the court intended was not to restrict the State to action only under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or a Civil Court but to ensure that there will be proper adjudication of claims / objections of various occupants who claim to have title. As long as their claims / objections are heard, considered and decided, it should make no difference whether the action is taken by the State under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or by way of suit in a Civil Court, or by any other proceedings under other statutes, in accordance with law. Therefore, we hereby clarify that paragraphs 9 to 11 of the order of the Division Bench of the High Court is not intended to restrict the State to action under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act or in a Civil Court. It is open to the State to take such action under any other enactment providing for eviction of unauthorized occupants or encroachers of such land, provided the same is done in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the persons affected. It is needless to reiterate that if persons in possession claim title and produce proof in support of it, the same shall have to be considered and appropriate orders passed. The State and its authorities cannot forcibly dispossess the private respondents before completion of such proceedings.” 8. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in GOVERNEMNT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. THUMMALA KRISHNA RAO AND ANOTHER[1]. Emphasis has been laid on paragraph No.8 of the above judgment, which reads as hereunder: “The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by S. 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of “a very recent origin”, cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by the learned single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Mehrunnissa begum v. State of A.P. (1970) I Andh LT 88 which was affirmed by a Division Bench (1971) 1 Andh LT 292; (AIR 1971 Andh Pra 382). It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more than nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.“ 9. Indisputably, the petitioners responded to the show- cause notices issued under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act and submitted their explanation and participated in the enquiry and invited orders thereon. 10. It is evident from the order impugned in the writ petition that the competent authority has considered the objections raised by the petitioners and issued the proceedings dated 23-04-2010. It is indicated in the proceedings that an appeal against the order impugned lies to Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division within a period of 60 days. 11. Under Section 10 of the Act, an appeal is provided against the order passed by the Tahasildar. Since the petitioners have efficacious remedy available under Section 10 of the Act, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned proceedings is misconceived. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J May 20, 2010. KTL/KH [1] AIR 1982 SUPREME COURT 1081