( 1 ) THE petitioner claims that he purchased a building bearing No. 8-2-616/1/b/3a, situated at Road No. 11, Banjara hills, Hyderabad under registered sale deed dated 18. 7. 1992 from Dr. P. Neena Desai. As per the sale deed executed by Dr. Neena desai in favour of the petitioner the land marked as Plot No. 3a is comprised in survey No. 129/69 situated at Road No. 11 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and the area is shown to be 940 square yards but in the preamble portion of the sale deed it is mentioned that the vendor of the petitioner purchased Plot No. 3a admeasuring 461 square yards in Survey No. 129/69 forming plot No. 5 from her vendor Devanand Singh. The petitioner alleges that, the land originally belonged to Md. Mirza, who sold the land in favour of Hasmath Raza in 1953, that after death of Hasmath Raja, his sons divided the property into house plots and sold Plot No. 3a to K. Srinivas Reddy under registered sale deed 22. 3. 1991, who inturn sold to Devanand Singh on 4. 7. 1984. The petitioner s vendor purchased the said plot No. 3a admeasuring 461 square yards under registered sale deed 9. 6. 1998, that since 1981, in all the sale deeds the area of plot No. 3a is shown as 940 square yards and that the petitioner s vendor obtained necessary building permission from Municipal corporation of Hyderabad in April, 1989 and constructed the building.

( 2 ) THE Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaik pet Mandal, Hyderabad issued summons on 5. 9. 1992 to the petitioner informing that he is found to be in illegal possession of government land in T. S. No-4/part and that a Land Grabbing Case is being instituted under the provisions of A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (the LGP Act, for brevity ). The petitioner was directed to produce documentary evidence like title deeds to prove his ownership within three days, failing which the case will be initiated under the LGP Act. The Mandal Revenue officer also sent a notice under Section 7 of A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the le Act, for brevity) bearing No. D/5717/92 dated 16. 9. 1992 calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why action should not be taken under Section 6 of LE Act. The petitioner allegedly sent replies on 23. 9. 1992 and 6. 9. 1993 giving particulars of the title to the property. In the second letter/explanation, the petitioner also undertook to pay the amount determined by the Government towards cost of the land, if any portion of the land in occupation is the property of the government. The first respondent by proceedings dated 3. 1. 2004 rejected the request of the petitioner for regularization under G. O. Ms. No. 508 dated 20. 10. 1995 read with G. O. Ms. No. 972 dated 4. 12. 1998 and G. O. Ms. No. 515 dated 19. 4. 2003. The petitioner alleges that he has not sought any regularization of the possession under the said Government Orders and that the first respondent misread the representation dated 6. 9. 2003.

( 3 ) THE Mandal Revenue Officer, shaikpet, second respondent herein, issued a notice dated 2. 12. 2003 under Section 7 of the LE Act calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why be should not be evicted from the Government property in Survey No. 403 of Shaikpet Village admeasuring 774 square meters with RCC building. The petitioner submitted explanation on 29. 12. 2003, inter alia, contending that he purchased the property measuring 940 square yards under registered sale deed that he has been paying all the property taxes and that there is abundant evidence to establish title over the property. The petitioner also contended that the action under the LE Act is without jurisdiction and that the proposal for regularisation is pending before the Government. Thereafter as noticed hereinabove, the District collector, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 3. 1. 2004 rejected the request of the petitioner. The second respondent considered the representation of the petitioner dated 29. 12. 2003 and issued proceedings dated 21. 5. 20