IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2186 of 2003 Between: 1 Salapu Chinna Appalanaidu S/o.Bulliappala Naidu R/o.Gatavada Village,Subbavaram Mandal Visakhapatnam Dist. 2 Sunkara Erukunaidu S/o.Appanna R/o.Gatavada Village,Subbavaram Mandal Visakhapatnam Dist. 3 Siyyadri Babuji S/o.Appalanaidu R/o.Gatavada Village,Subbavaram Mandal Visakhapatnam Dist. 4 Erothu Appalanaidu S/o.Atchanna R/o.Gatavada Village,Subbavaram Mandal Visakhapatnam Dist. 5 Karanam Ramalaxmi W/o.Late Ramunaidu R/o.Gatavada Village,Subbavaram Mandal Visakhapatnam Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector Visakhapatnam Dist. 2 The Joint Collector Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Sabbavaram Visakhapatnam Dist. 4 Penumastha Butchi Venkata Suryanarayana Raju, S/o Appala Raju, R/o. Gali Bhimavaram, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. (R4 is impleaded as per Court Order order dated 15.06.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.8663 of 2003) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more especially one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus declaring the Land Encroachment Proceedings under Rc.No:475 of 2002, dt.31-1-2003 for the lands in estate viz., Vijayanagaram Estate in respect of Sy.Nos.13/2 and 15/2 of an extent of Ac:1.23 cents and 0-53 cents of Gotavada Village, Subbavaram Mandal,Visakhapatnam District as without jurisdiction illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE A.V.SESHA SAI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2186 of 2003 ORDER: Heard both sides. According to the petitioners, about 25 years ago, they have purchased the lands in Sy.Nos.13/2 and 15/2 of Gotavada Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakahpatnam, originally belonged to Vizianagaram Estate, from their predecessors in possession, who purchased the same from the pattadars, and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is their case that the 3rd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam District, issued notices under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, on 12.01.2003, stating that the subject lands are Government lands and that they have encroached the same and, therefore, they were asked to show cause before 27.01.2003 as to why they should not be dispossessed from the said lands. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners, through their advocate, requested the 3rd respondent to grant time till 25.02.2003 for filing their objections along with the documentary evidence, on the ground that they have to obtain certified copies of the documents showing their title over the subject lands. But however, the 3rd respondent issued notices dated 31.01.2003 directing the petitioners to vacate the subject lands within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notices. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lands in question originally belonged to Vizianagaram Estate and they were purchased by the petitioners about 25 years ago, from their predecessors, who were in possession and enjoyment of the same since 1929, having purchased the same from the pattadars, and that the petitioners have also filed applications under Section 11 of the A.P. (A.A.) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Estates Abolition Act’), before the Settlement Officer under the Act, for grant of ryotwari pattas in their favour. He further submits that, since the lands were Estate lands, even if the petitioners are required to be evicted therefrom, it can be done only as per the procedure envisaged under the Estates Abolition Act, but not as per the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and therefore the impugned notices are arbitrary and illegal. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision in N.N.P. Rao v. State[1]. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent submits that the lands are communal lands and that the Estates Abolition Act has no application and the 3rd respondent has not committed any error in issuing the impugned notices. He further submits that the petitioners have been causing obstruction to the unofficial respondent in enjoying his own lands. Admittedly, there is some dispute as to whether the subject lands are Estate lands or not, and it is for the Settlement Officer under the Estates Abolition Act, to resolve the said dispute and decide whether the petitioners are entitled for ryotwari pattas under Section 11 of the said Act. Without getting the said dispute resolved, the respondents could not have invoked the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and issued the impugned notices. Under those circumstances, the impugned notices dated 31.01.2003 are set aside and the petitioners are directed to submit a detailed representation to the Settlement Officer i.e. the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, the 2nd respondent herein, within one month from today, seeking to decide whether the subject lands are Estate lands or not, and, on such representation being submitted, the 2nd respondent shall dispose of the same within a period of three months thereafter, after issuing notice to all the concerned, including the unofficial respondent herein, and after hearing them. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by the parties. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 8th June, 2009. IBL [1] AIR 1972 AP 331