IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19233 of 2000 Between: 1 Shaik Dawood, [died per Lrs. Pets.2 to 5] S/o.Suleman @ Bade Saheb, R/o.Nidumolu Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. 2 Shaik Thowhida Begum, W/o. late Shaik Dawood, R/o.Nidumolu Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. P2 as brought on record as per the court order dt 1.3.04 in WPMP 33164/03 3 Shaik Shameem, S/o. Late Shaik Dawood, R/o.Nidumolu Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. P3 to as brought on record as per the court order dt 1.3.04 in WPMP 33164/03 4 Shaik Shaleem, S/o. Late Shaik Dawood, R/o.Nidumolu Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. P4 as brought on records as per court order dt 1-3-04 in WPMP 33164/03 5 Shaik Rahamatunnisa, W/o. Mahaboob Subhani, R/o.Nidumolu Village, Movva Mandal, Krishna District. [Petitioners 5 are brought on record as per Court order dated 1.3.2004 in WPMP.No.33164/03]. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, R/o.Movva Mandal, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandarr, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 The Joint Collector, Krishna District, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash notice dated 05-01-1999 issued by respondent No.1 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) and confirmed by respondent No.2 in his proceedings dated 18-04-1999 and further confirmed by order dated 03-03-2000 of respondent No.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the sole petitioner died and petitioners 2 to 5 were brought on record as his legal representatives by order dated 01-03-2004 passed by this Court. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents and perused the record. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents of land in R.S.No.804 of Nidumolu Village. The petitioners claim that their family members are running a coffee hotel in the said property and that eviction proceedings initiated in the year 1935 were subsequently dropped on the ground that the property was in the enjoyment of the family of the petitioners for a long time. When there was an attempt to evict the petitioners and others from their respective occupation of the Government land, they filed W.P.No.26715 of 1997. While the said writ petition was pending, the Executive Officer of Movva Gram Panchayat issued notices, questioning which, the petitioners and others filed O.S.No.168 of 1998 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda and persuaded the said Court to grant an order of status quo on 21-08- 1998. Later on, the proceedings under the Act were initiated by respondent No.1 by issuing a notice under Section 7 of the Act, which was served on the petitioners on 12-11-1998. The petitioners got a reply sent though their advocate on 19-11-1998 and after considering the same, an order under Section 6 of the Act was evidently passed by respondent No.1. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2 who by order dated 18-04-1999, dismissed the same and revision petition filed by the petitioners against the said order of respondent No.2 also ended in dismissal on 03-03-2000. A perusal of the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 shows that the land in occupation of the petitioners is a Government land classified as ‘cattle pound poramboke’. The only ground on which the petitioners resisted their eviction was that their family perfected their title by prescription. The provisions of the Act give power and jurisdiction to the authorities concerned to evict unauthorized occupants of Government lands. Whether the encroacher is in possession of the property for more than the prescribed period of limitation and perfected his title by adverse possession cannot be raised before the hierarchical authorities, because it is for the civil Court of competent jurisdiction before which such questions have to be raised to adjudicate such questions with reference to the evidence adduced before it. To succeed on such an issue, it is incumbent upon the person claiming adverse possession to show that not only he or his family is in possession of the property for the prescribed period, but also such possession has ripened into possessory title by proving ‘animus possidendi’ to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner (see Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1] and Annakili v. A. Vedanayagam[2]). Admittedly, the petitioners filed O.S.No.168 of 1998 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. It is, therefore, open to them to raise all the relevant pleas including the plea of adverse possession. Till such time as the petitioners succeed in getting a decree that they perfected their title by adverse possession by a competent civil Court, they cannot prevent the State and its Officers from exercising their statutory power under the provisions of the Act. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the respondents. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 15-03-2004 is vacated and WPMP No.24388 of 2000 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 24th July, 2008 vrn [1] 2002 (1) Supreme 55 [2] AIR 2008 SC 346