THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21078 of 2009 Dated 29th September, 2011 Between: Katta Satyanarayana …Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary to Irrigation and CAD, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Irrigation & CAD Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare order, dated 18.09.2009, of respondent No.2, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.3.75 cents in R.S.Nos.738 and 739 of China Tadinada Revenue Village, which is being used for running fish tanks. He has pleaded that he constructed a tiled shed on the bund of fish tank situated in the said survey numbers for the purpose of his residence. It is his further case that six years after living in the said shed, he shifted his residence to another place and is using the shed for storing the fish feed. By the impugned proceedings, respondent No.2 has called upon the petitioner to remove the said shed within seven days on the allegation that the same is constructed on the left bank of Peda Kommileru Major Drain (km 0.200). The petitioner has got a detailed reply notice, dated 20.09.2009, issued through his advocate. The petitioner averred that on 24.09.2009, respondent No.2 visited the place and threatened to demolish the structure. Hence, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the shed in question is located in Survey No.741 and from the FMB sketch furnished by the Tahsildar, it was revealed that the petitioner has encroached upon the said site, which is part of left bank of major drain and therefore, the impugned notice is issued seeking removal of the structure. If a person is in possession of Government land, he is liable for eviction by following the procedure prescribed by the A.P.Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the respondents are of the opinion that the site over which the petitioner raised the structure forms part of drain bund, they have to get the proceedings initiated under the Act. Respondent No.2 cannot come to a unilateral conclusion that the structure raised by the petitioner is on the public land. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are, however, given liberty to initiate proceedings under the Act, if they intend to evict the petitioner on the ground that the structure is raised over the land belonging to the Irrigation Department. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27414 of 2009 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th September, 2011 VGB