IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17409 of 2000 Between: Smt. Nara Chinnamma. … Petitioner And The Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.Shahina Khan for Smt. M.Bhaskara Lakshmi. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside orders dated 19-8-2000, 22-7-2000 and 7-2-2000 passed by respondents 1 to 3 respectively and order dated 28-6-1999 passed by respondent No.4. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to evict her from the land to an extent of Ac.1.60 cents in Survey No.478/1 of S.Kota Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Respondent No.4 issued notice dated 27-11-1998 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “ the Act”) to the petitioner seeking her eviction from the above mentioned land, which was classified as “Vagu Poramboke” and admittedly belonging to the Government. She filed her explanation to the said notice, wherein she stated that the said land is in her possession since 1954; that she has been cultivating the said land; and that her family does not have any other source of livelihood. After considering the said explanation, an order under Section 6 of the Act was passed by respondent No.4 on 28-6-1999 directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the above mentioned land. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 10 of the Act. The said appeal was dismissed by respondent No.3 by his order dated 7- 2-2000. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed a further appeal before respondent No.2, which also met the same fate with its dismissal by order dated 22-7-2000 passed by respondent No.2. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before respondent No.1, but was unsuccessful in her endeavor in convincing him to reverse the orders of respondents 2 and 3 with the dismissal of the said revision by order dated 19-8-2000. Questioning all these orders, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. In her affidavit, the petitioner assailed the orders of respondents 1 to 3 mainly on the ground that they failed to take into consideration the fact that she perfected her title by adverse possession as she is in possession of the said property for well over 30 years. Another ground on which she assailed the order passed under Section 6 of the Act was that the same was passed one year after the notice was issued under Section 7 and that she is a landless poor person and is entitled for issue of a patta. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above mentioned pleas. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have not felt convinced to accept the same. The question whether the petitioner perfected her title by adverse possession or not is a mixed question of law and fact, which cannot be adjudicated either by the hierarchal authorities or this Court as the same is required to be raised by the petitioner before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction by adducing evidence, both oral and documentary. The law is well settled that mere possession of the land, however long it may be, would not ripe into possessory title unless the possessor has ‘animus possidendi’ to hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. (See: Konda Lakshman Babuji Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh(1) and Annakili Vs. Vedanayagam(2)). It is for the competent civil Court to give a declaration if it is satisfied that the petitioner is not only in possession of the land for over the statutory period of 30 years but also that such possession was to the knowledge of the Government or its subordinates and adverse to their interest. Unless the petitioner satisfies the requirement of ‘animus possidendi’ she is not entitled to claim any right over the property on the plea of adverse possession. With respect to the contention that the order under Section 6 was passed one year after receipt of notice, I am of the view that the order passed under Section 6 does not get vitiated merely on account of the delay in passing the same. The petitioner failed to plead and show any prejudice that is caused on account of the delay of one year in passing the order under Section 6. On the other hand, by delaying the matter by one year, respondent No.4 postponed the action of recovery of possession enabling the petitioner to enjoy the property for one more year. Therefore, I do not find any force in this contention. With regard to the claim of the petitioner that she approached the competent authorities for granting assignment, no material is filed by the petitioner in support of the said contention nor the pleadings of the petitioner on record contain any details as to the dates on which she approached the respondents for granting assignment. Unless the petitioner seeks assignment and succeeds in getting the same, her mere oral assertion that she has been making attempts for granting assignment does not help her to resist her eviction from the Government land. So long as the land belonging to the Government is in possession of the petitioner, she cannot claim any vested right to retain possession irrespective of whether she is poor or not. It has come on record that the husband of the petitioner is a retired Court employee, which was also a factor that was taken into consideration by the respondents. However, irrespective of the status of the petitioner and her family, I do not find any error in the orders passed by respondents 1 to 3 in upholding the order passed by respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the Act. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ---------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:23-07-2008 MNR