HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28748 of 2011 ORDER: Questioning the action of the 5th respondent in issuing notice dated 21.09.2011 in respect of the petitioner’s property admeasuring Ac.0.84 cents in Survey No.278/3; Ac.1.10 cents in Survey No.278/4 and Ac.0.84 cents in Survey No.278/5 respectively, in Komaravolu village and Gram Panchayat, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. The Tahsildar, Pamarru (5th respondent) issued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’), pursuant to which the petitioner claims to have submitted his objections. Thereafter on the petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, the respondents were directed, by order in W.P.No.26727 of 2011 dated 23.09.2011 to conduct a survey. Thereafter, a joint inspection was conducted and a report was submitted on 20.10.2011. Alleging improper conduct of inspection, the petitioner has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court questioning the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act. Sri Challa Dhananjaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the joint inspection committee did not take into consideration Ac.0.84 cents of land owned by the petitioner as is evident from the registered sale deed, and the petitioner has also been denied an opportunity of filing his further objections to the Section 7 notice, after a copy of the joint inspection report was furnished to them. Learned Counsel would submit that, as is evident from the registered sale deed, the petitioner is the owner of the land; there is a serious dispute regarding title; it is not, therefore, open to the Government to take recourse to the summary proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act as such disputed questions of title can only be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra and Rayalaseema Areas) would submit that the respondents are entitled to take action to evict persons in unauthorised occupation of Government lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act which requires a notice under Section 7 of the Act to be issued, objections invited, and thereafter an order to be passed under Section 6 of the Act. Learned Government Pleader would submit that, since the petitioner has submitted his objections, the respondents would be taking action in accordance with Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why he should not be evicted from the irrigation channel bund. Since all that is challenged in this writ petition is a notice issued under the Act, and as the petitioner can as well raise all objections, urged before this Court, before the Tahsildar, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District (5th respondent), who issued the said notice, I see no reason to interfere except to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to submit additional objections to the Section 7 notice regarding the joint inspection report, dated 20.10.2011. In case the petitioner submits additional objections by 31.10.2011, the 5th respondent shall consider the said objections and, thereafter, take action in accordance with Section 6 of the Act. While making it clear that this Court has not indicted exercise of jurisdiction by the Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Act, the 5th respondent shall also not demolish the buildings in question till an order is passed by him under Section 6 of the Act. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27.10.2011 Note: Issue C.C.by tomorrow. (Bo) Gsn