THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.10094 OF 2008 BETWEEN: 1. Pydala Ramana Reddy S/o. Narapureddy, R/o. Ramachandrapuram, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore District. And another. …. PETITIONERS And The Tahsildar, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore District. …. RESPONDENT Counsel for petitioners: Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following order: ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of eviction passed by the respondent, viz., Tahsildar, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore District invoking the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’), as illegal. 2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.50 cents situated in S.No.1052/1 of Vaveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore District. They have constructed a small house on the said land and have been residing therein. A show cause notice in Rc.B.107/2008, dated 8.04.2008 issued under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act was served on the petitioners, stating that the petitioners have encroached upon an extent of 28 ankanams (69.6” x 29.0”) situated in S.Nos.1058 and 1208 of Ramchandrapuram village, and they were called upon to submit their explanation. The petitioners state that they responded to the said notice and submitted explanation on 17.04.2008. The petitioners denied that they have encroached on the said land and requested the respondent to conduct a survey, in order to ascertain whether the said land had in fact been encroached. It is the case of the petitioners that without considering the said representation, the respondent has passed the impugned order. 3. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not encroached on any part of the Government land and they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in S.No.1052/1 and that the petitioners have asserted the same in their explanation. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent could have verified this fact and pass orders. Failure to do so, has resulted in the impugned order. The learned counsel also contends that the show cause notice is vague and without any material particulars. 5. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter affidavit reiterating that the petitioners are encroachers. It is stated that the petitioners did not respond to the show cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Act and denied that they had filed any explanation on 17.4.2008. Based on the said submission, the learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief in this writ petition. 6. Under Section 7 of the Act, before taking proceedings under Section 6 for eviction of an unauthorized occupant, the competent authority shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorized occupation of land, being the proprietor of the Government, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why should not be proceeded against him for eviction. 7. The provisions of Section 6 provide for summary eviction in the manner provided therein. A reading of Section 6 of the Act shows that eviction under the Act is summary in nature. A plain reading of Section 7 shows that it is mandatory to serve a notice on the person, who is alleged to be in unauthorized occupation of the Government land, and such notice should specify the land so occupied. The proceedings being summary in nature it is incumbent on the authorities as required under Section 7 to issue notice specifying the details of the property alleged to have been encroached. Such a notice cannot be vague and lack in material particulars as to the description and extent of land. 8. In the instant case, the notice was given alleging unauthorized occupation of an extent of 28 ankanams of land as per entry in column 5 of the notice. But in column 6 of the said notice, the extent was indicated as 69.6” x 29.0”. This entry in column 6 appears to have been entered after the measurement. Be that as it may, in the final order the extent has been shown as 14 anakanams and as per the measurement the extent is 67.0 x 29.0. There is no indication that where 28 ankanams (69.6” x 29.0”) of land as indicated in the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, or 14 ankanams (67.0 x 29.0) of land as indicated in the order passed under Section 6 of the Act, is actually located. The petitioners specifically assert that they have not encroached on any part of the Government land and a survey in their presence would disclose the same. The respondents however sought to justify the discrepancy in the extent of land stating that the said discrepancy has occurred due to typographical error. Be that as it may, by such discrepancy it can safely be inferred that the petitioners had no proper opportunity to offer their explanation. It is true that the respondents have denied that the petitioners had not submitted any explanation to the notice issued. But as discussed above, the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act is vague and lacks in material particulars and the order passed under Section 6 of the Act is at variance with the particulars shown in the notice. As stated, the notice also did not contain the date within which the explanation should be submitted. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be said to be in compliance with the provisions of Section 7 and 6 of the Act, and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration. The respondent is directed to issue fresh show cause notice describing the alleged encroachment with all material particulars and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 16th November, 2010 Js.