THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21363 of 2003 November 25, 2010 Between: Potnuru Krishna Murthy, S/o.Late Rama Murthy And others … Petitioners And The District Collector, Srikakulam District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.21363 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners are allegedly owners and possessors of houses situated in Hiramandalam in Srikakulam District. Third respondent, however, initiated action under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act). Order under Section 6 thereof was passed on 27.8.2003 directing eviction of petitioners from their households alleging that they encroached Government land. Petitioners then preferred appeals before the second respondent under Section 10 of the Act. The same were dismissed on 25.9.2003. Assailing the same, present writ petition is filed. Respondents have not filed counter affidavit. The Counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are not encroachers and, therefore, the respondents have necessarily to seek a declaration in th e Civil Court. These contentions are refuted by the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). This Court in Raidurg Co-op.House Building Society Ltd. v Govt. of A.P.[1] and Mahavir Pershad v Collector, Hyderabad District[2] considered the question raised in this writ petition. Even if the petitioners’ claim to be in longstanding possession of Government land, the same does not preclude the authorities from proceeding under Andhra Pradesh Land Encorachment Act, 1905. In the first of the two decisions cited herein above, it was held as follows. As rightly contended by the learned Advocate General, the State has an option to avail any of the remedies available under law including the Land Encroachment Act. When the land was surveyed as Government poramboke land and Revenue records show as such, the petitioners cannot allege long standing occupation when pattas given to Chandni Begum and Sonabai are not genuine and incorrect. Merely placing reliance on some communications among various officials, it cannot be said that there is a bona fide and genuine dispute of title. In a given case even if there is evidence of showing the possession of a person, it cannot be said that there is bona fide dispute. Long standing possession is one of the factors and the same cannot be the only factor to compel the Government to go and avail remedy of civil suit. It must be remembered that by a catena of decisions it is well settled that only entries in the Revenue records do not confer any title. Nonetheless, if revenue survey is conducted as required under law and in accordance with the provisions, Sethwar can itself be evidence of title. The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) followed the procedure before passing the impugned order and the question whether the petitioners are encroachers or not, is a question of fact, which cannot be decided in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 25, 2010. YS [1] 2003 (3) ALD 2 [2] 2006(6) ALT 687