THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8997 of 2010 21.04.2010 Between: Santhinagar Welfare Association ….Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8997 OF 2010 ORDER: Shanthinagar Welfare Association, IDA Bollaram in Medak District filed instant writ petition challenging the notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act, for brevity) issued to its President, namely, Buram Pundarikam requiring to vacate the Government land admeasuring 240 square yards in survey No.249. They also assail another such notice issued to Rohith Singh requiring to vacate land admeasuring 150 square yards in survey No.284. Admittedly petitioner Association approached third respondent and urged to provide opportunity to present their case. Probably it also submitted explanation to third respondent. It alleged that even though no orders are passed, respondents are trying to take possession of lands without following due process of law. Therefore, it filed the instant writ petition. The counsel for petitioner Association submits that without therebeing compliance with Section 3 of the Act, notice under Section 7 of the Act is invalid. The submission is wholly misconceived. Section 3 of the Act is enabling provision empowering the Government to calculate the assessment for the land unauthorisedly occupied by any person. Section 6 of the Act speaks of liability of person unauthorisedly occupying the land to summary eviction. This is condition precedent for such summary eviction. A reading of Sections 3, 7 and 6 in that order does not in any manner support the contention that in every encroachment, the Government must first assess and then issue notice under Section 7 of the Act before passing orders of eviction under Section 6 of the Act. Even where the Government has not burdened a person in unauthorized occupation with assessment to Government, such person can be evicted summarily. Insofar as the other allegation that there is a threat of dispossession is concerned, it is only an apprehension. If only the respondents desired to evict the petitioner without due process of law, there would have been no necessity for issue of notice under Section 7 of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 21.04.2010 Pln