THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7198, 7217 AND 7219 OF 2010 30.03.2010 Between: Pasam Babu Rao ….Petitioner AND Commissional of Appeals, O/O Chief Commissioner Land Administration, Government of A.P., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.7198, 7217 AND 7219 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: The point involved is same in all the three writ petitions. The petitioners belong to the same family and claim common ancestry. Therefore, this common order. In these three writ petitions, the notice issued under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Land Encroachment Act, for brevity) is challenged as without jurisdiction. The land admeasuring Acs.35.93 cents in survey No.329/2 of Royyuru Village of Thotlavalluru Mandal of Krishna District, is statedly lanka land known as ‘Gulamala Dibba’. As an accretion of lanka land, it was allegedly in uninterrupted possession of Pasam Chandrasekhar Rao, the grandfather of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that Pasam Chandrasekhar Rao filed an application before Settlement Officer, Eluru under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Estates Abolition Act, for brevity) for grant of patta in respect of Acs.29.40 cents in survey No.329/2. The applicant died and his sons and daughters pursued the matter as legal representatives. By order, dated 18.08.1981, in S.R.11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, the Settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta under Section 11(b) of the Estates Abolition Act. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed a revision before second respondent, which was allowed and patta was cancelled. The petitioners then preferred R.P.No.178/82/A1 before first respondent, which is pending. The third respondent issued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act alleging that petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of Government land, that they are liable for eviction of the land and they were called to submit their explanation. The petitioners submitted explanation separately on 27.03.2010. The third respondent yet to consider the same and pass orders. In the meanwhile contending that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of the Act, they filed the instant writ petitions. The petitioners further contend that pursuant to grant of patta by Settlement Officer, their names were mutated in revenue records and also obtained pattadar pass books and therefore, they are in uninterrupted possession for the land sixty years. They cannot be treated as encroachers of the Government land for the purpose of the Land Encroachment Act. The counsel relies on Ramarao v State of Andhra[1], Government of Andhra Pradesh v Thummala Krishna Rao[2] a n d G.Sambasiva Rao v the A.P.State Road Transport Corporation[3] and submits that when the claim of the landholder for grant of ryotwari patta under the Estates Abolition Act is pending, the proceedings under Land Encroachment Act cannot be invoked. With the assistance of the Court, I have gone through the explanation submitted by petitioners separately. Nowhere such a ground is urged except stating that pursuant to granting patta and even prior thereto, their predecessors are in possession for over six decades. Be that as it is, third respondent is yet to pass orders and the writ petitions are filed assailing the notice. It is well settled that against show cause notice, writ petition would not lie. It is also settled that even when the jurisdiction of the authority issuing notice is raised, such a question has to be urged initially before the same authority by submitting explanation and writ petition is not a proper remedy (See State of Uttar Pradesh v Shri Brahma Datta Sharma[4], K.Veerabhadrudu v Special Deputy Director[5] and Special Director v Mohd.Ghulam Ghouse[6]). Therefore, in view of the binding precedents, this Court is not inclined to entertain these writ petitions at the stage of notice. Counsel for petitioners raised an apprehension that the third respondent is threatening to dispossess the petitioners even before an order is passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, and therefore, seeks protection. It is needless to mention that unless and until an order is passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, the encroachment or occupation of the Government land cannot be treated as unobjectionable. The Land Encroachment Act contemplates eviction of the person whose occupation of Government property is objectionable. Therefore, be it made clear till an order is passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, after considering the explanation of the petitioners, the third respondent cannot dispossess the petitioners. If any adverse order is passed, the petitioners may approach the Revenue Divisional Officer by way of appeal under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act and seek appropriate relief. The third respondent is also directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be status quo with regard to possession. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.03.2010 Pln Note: Issue CC by 01.04.2010. (By order) pln [1] (1956) 2 An.W.R. 725 [2] AIR 1982 SC 1081 [3] 1997 (2) ALT 588 [4] AIR 1987 SC 943 [5] 2000 (1) ALT 452 [6] (2004) 3 SCC 440