THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27722 of 2009 Date: 18.01.2010 Between: Vardireddi Narasimha Reddy and others. ..Petitioners and The District Collector and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27722 of 2009 ORDER: The Tahsildar, Badvel, the third respondent herein, issued a notice on 05.12.2009 to the petitioners under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (‘the Act’ for short), requiring them to explain as to why an extent of Acs.2.38 cents in survey No.1168/2 of Badvel Village and Mandal of Kadapa District be not resumed. One Sri Vardireddi Narsimha Reddy had four sons i.e., petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and one Mr. Sreenivasula Reddy. He was given an extent of Acs.1.50 cents in the said survey number under ek-sal lease in the year 1982 by the then Tahsildar. The petitioners state that the said land was brought under cultivation and thereafter, it was decided among the four sons. Houses are said to have been constructed and other amenities are availed from the various departments. The petitioners contend that their long standing possession has been ripe- in into title and impugned notice cannot be sustained in law. They rely upon judgment of this Court in District Collector, Rangareddy vs. K. Narasing Rao[1]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners do not dispute that their father was granted ek- sal lease to cultivate the land in an extent of Acs.1.50 cents. The petitioners claim to have inherited that land from their father. It is no doubt true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court held that the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked in cases where there is genuine dispute as to title between a private individual on the one hand and the Government on the other hand. In the instant case the fact that ek-sal lease was granted in favour of the father of the petitioners discloses that the petitioners do not dispute the title of the Government. It is a different matter that they have either developed the land or constructed houses. The petitioners can certainly put-forward their objections and contentions in the explanation to the notice. As long as the impugned notice is not without jurisdiction, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to submit explanation to the impugned notice within a period of fifteen days from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18th January, 2009 Note: Issue CC in three days. (B/o) GHN [1] 1997(4) ALT 428 (D.B.)