THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.2016 AND 2139 of 2003 Dated: 02.08.2011 Between: Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad And others … Appellants AND M/s.Kinnera Steels Private Limited, represented by its Director and General Manager, Mandava Sitarama Rao And others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos.2016 AND 2139 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao) These appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of High Court are against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18.11.2002 in Writ Petition Nos.3758 and 3762 of 1992. By impugned judgment, the learned single Judge set aside the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothagudem-the third appellant herein-purportedly under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act, for brevity). The short fact of the matter is as follows. By order in G.O.Ms.No.1162, dated 04.12.1963 the Government allotted an extent of Acs.50.00 in Survey No.137/1 of Chunchupalli village and Acs.3.17 in Survey No.141/1 of Kothagudem Village and Mandal, Khammam District for establishment of an industrial estate. After the establishment of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), the second respondent herein, the Director of Industries transferred the land to them. In turn, APIIC appears to have allotted the land to various industries including the first respondent herein viz., M/s. Kinnera Steels Private Limited. Another extent was allotted to M/s.Nagarjuna Steels. In 1990 the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated action under the Act and issued notice under Section 7 thereof alleging that APIIC illegally occupied an extent of Acs.6.39 over and above the extent of land allotted to the industrial estate. In response thereto, the Regional Manager of APIIC submitted explanation denying the allegation. They contended that they are not in possession of any land other than the one in Survey Nos.137/1 and 141/1 of Chunchupalli and Kothagudem villages respectively. After receiving such explanation and as requested by the Regional Manager, a joint survey was undertaken. During the survey, it revealed that the industrial estate authorities occupied government land admeasuring Acs.6.39. Based on the same, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued proceedings dated 26.12.1990 directing eviction of the APIIC from the Government land. The first respondent in W.A.No.2016 of 2003 filed W.P.No.3758 of 1992 and the other allottee filed W.P.No.3762 of 1992. They inter alia contended that the eviction order without notice to them is illegal, that the land allotted to them by APIIC is well within the survey numbers and that the summary proceedings for eviction are illegal. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that when serious questions of title are involved, the summary proceedings under the Act are unsustainable and that in the absence of any notice to the allottees, the proceedings are vitiated. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed setting aside the eviction orders passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer. The Government Pleader for Revenue submits that a joint survey was conducted in the presence of the Regional Manager of APIIC. During such survey, it was found that an extent of Acs.6.39 was encroached by APIIC. In view of this, the eviction proceedings are unsustainable. It is further contended that the ratio in Government of A.P. v. Tummala Krishna Rao[1], has no application to the facts on hand. In Tummala Krishna Rao, it was laid down that where there is genuine dispute of title, the Government cannot resort to summary eviction under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The question of title in such cases must be decided in a properly constituted suit. It was held. The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in-title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. In Special Deputy Collector v. Konda Lakshman Bapuji[2], a Division Bench of this Court observed. ... The occupation of the property by the writ petitioners being open and for an appreciable length of time as observed by the Supreme Court can be taken prima facie to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law. Since there is a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the writ petitioners it must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary Courts of Law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict them summarily on the basis of such decision.… A learned Single Judge of this Court in Shivalingappa v. State of A.P.[3], considered the decisions of the Supreme Court in Tummala Krishna Rao and another decision of this Court in Konda Lakshman Bapuji and observed that these two decisions do not lay down any general law that whenever the persons sought to be evicted from the land claim their possession to be not unauthorised, the Government should be compelled to go to a Civil Court. It was also observed that when there is evidence that Government is in possession of the land, the Court must not conclude that the petitioner raised a bona fide claim about the possession. As rightly contended by the Government Pleader, the State has an option to avail any of the remedies available under law including the Land Encroachment Act. In a given case even if there is evidence of showing the possession of a person, it cannot be said that there is bona fide dispute. Long standing possession is one of the factors and the same cannot be the only factor to compel the Government to avail remedy of civil suit. It is not for the persons who are in illegal occupation to dictate to the Government as to which remedy the Government should avail for evicting the persons in occupation. To that extent, we are not able to agree with observation made by the learned single Judge. It is always open to the Government to initiate action under the provisions of the Act for evicting the person in illegal occupation/encroachment of the government land. It is also open to the Government either to file a suit in the civil Court for declaration or file cases before the Special Court/Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The learned single Judge has also recorded a conclusion that no notice was issued to the allottees before passing the order impugned in the writ petition. There is no serious dispute about this nor any material is produced before us to show that notice under Section 7 of the Act was served on the first respondent. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any error warranting interference. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ____________________ (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 02.08.2011 Isn/vs [1] AIR 1982 SC 1081 [2] 1984 (1) APLJ 219 (DB) [3] 1988 (1) ALT 716