THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4870 of 2010 05.03.2010 Between: Mohd. Hamid Ahmed ….Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4870 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner statedly purchased land admeasuring Acs.6.00 in survey No.510 of Kanakamamidi Village, Moinabad Mandal, in Ranga Reddy District under three registered sale deeds, bearing document No.425 of 2001, dated 28.08.2001; vide document No.1907 of 2003, dated 08.05.2003 and vide document No.486 of 2009, dated 13.02.2009. The second respondent initiated action under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act, for brevity) and issued notice under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner was asked to show cause either in person or in writing to show as to why he should not be evicted from the subject land. It is alleged in the said notice that it is a Government land which is in an unauthorised occupation of petitioner. The notice was issued to one Kadir Shaik, vendor of the petitioner. The petitioner having come to know of the same, engaged the counsel, who sought time for filing reply. The petitioner alleges that even while he is trying to get the correct information about the case before the second respondent, an order/notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.12.2009 directing eviction of petitioner, who is in possession of the land. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner who reiterated the petition averments in his oral submissions. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue opposed the writ petition. There is no dispute that at least for the purpose of this case, that the petitioner purchased the land under three sale deeds and the land is comprised in survey No.510 of Kanakamamidi village. If the second respondent initiated action on the assumption that the said land is Government land, which is under unauthorised occupation of the petitioner, it is certainly a disputed question of fact whether it is patta land or Government land. When the Government claims the land as its own, it is within their powers either to proceed under Land Encroachment Act or Land Grabbing Act or file a suit for declaration. In this case, the Tahsildar proceeded under the Encroachment Act and already issued ntoice under Section 6 of the Act, which is appealable under Section 10 of the said Act. The petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal and filed the instant case virtually seeking a declaration of his title in writ petition. The writ petition – it is well settled, seeking a declaration of title to immovable property is certainly not maintainable. The petitioner’s remedy lies to prefer an appeal. Liberty is reserved to him to do so. As and when appeal is preferred, the appellate authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer may entertain the appeal notwithstanding some delay, and pass appropriate orders. The writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05.03.2010 Pln