THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3461 of 2007 ORDER: Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society was registered for the Members of Parliament, hailing from Andhra Pradesh, and Members of Legislative Assembly. The Government allotted quite large extent of land in survey No.403/1 of Shaikpet Village and survey No.102/1 of Hakimpet Revenue Village. The plots were carved out and the layout was approved by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, the 3rd respondent herein, vide proceedings, dated 8.01.1984. In her capacity as the Member of Parliament, the 1st petitioner was allotted plot No.236/A admeasuring 1000 square metres. Sale deeds dated 30.06.1984 and 18.02.1985 were executed in her favour, for an extent of 875 and 125 square metres, respectively. The 1st petitioner is said to have sold the plots in favour of the 2nd petitioner on 06.01.2004. The 2nd respondent, Estate Officer of the Urban Development Authority, issued a notice, dated 26.02.2003, to the petitioners, alleging that they have encroached into 536 square metres of land constituting plot No.95 and part of plot No.96 of HUDA Heights layout. A reply was submitted on 28.03.2003, denying the allegation. In exercise of power conferred upon him under Section 5 of the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act (for short ‘the Act’), the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 28.05.2003, directing eviction of the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed C.M.A.No.74 of 2005 before the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 9 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on 19.10.2006. Hence, this Writ Petition. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners did not encroach into any land and that plot No.236/A forming part of the layout, is in their possession. He contends that the 3rd respondent prepared a layout at a subsequent stage and without making proper verification of the records, the proceedings were initiated. He submits that the proceedings under the Act can be initiated, only when there is no dispute as to the ownership or demarcation and that the 2nd respondent acted without jurisdiction. Sri M.Surender Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the 3rd respondent was allotted land by the Government of A.P., and under a project, the land was divided into plots and put to auction. He contends that the petitioners were not able to establish their case, either before the 2nd respondent, or before the Appellate Authority. The 1st petitioner was the allottee of plot No.236/A. It appears that the relevant record was not placed before the 2nd respondent, or the Appellate Authority, particularly, the layout. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court, a certified copy of the layout. According to this, plot No.236/A is at the end and its road facing is 32 metres. In size, it is double, compared to other plots. The circumstances under which the plot was brought into existence, are not before this Court. The layout was sanctioned by none other than the 3rd respondent. Before initiating the proceedings against the petitioners, it ought to have verified the layout sanctioned by it, in the year 1984, in favour of Sri Venkateswara Cooperative House Building Society. No such effort appears to have been made. By its very nomenclature, the Act applies to cases where no dispute exists as to the public nature of premises. It is only the unauthorized occupants of the public premises that can be evicted. It cannot be pressed into service, if there exists a serious dispute as to the nature of the property, or the boundaries thereof. In such cases, a different procedure, or forum has to be chosen. If the 2nd respondent is permitted to decide the disputes of this nature, it amounts to conferring adjudicatory power upon one of the parties to the dispute. That was never the intention of the Legislature. Notwithstanding the impropriety, or illegality, in invoking the procedure under the Act, the 3rd respondent can certainly cause verification of the layout under which plot No.236/A was carved out. If any discrepancy exists, proceedings before a proper forum can be initiated. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set aside. It is left open to the 3rd respondent to undertake verification of layout No.TP 8.82 dated 18.01.1984 and if it is found that the petitioners are in possession of any area over and above what is comprised in plot No.236/A, it shall be open to him to take necessary steps in accordance with law by issuing notice to the petitioners. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.24.02.2011. GJ