( 1 ) THE petitioner who is a resident of beerolu Village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal in khammam District, filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents namely, government of Andhra Pradesh in Revenue department and the Mandal Revenue officer (MRO), Tirumalayapalem Mandal, in treating his possession in respect of an extent of Ac. 1. 47 gts. in Sy. No. 97 of the said village (hereinafter called the disputed land ) as unauthorized and as encroachment, is illegal. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that he is the absolute owner thereof and the respondents have no authority or jurisdiction to interfere with his possession over the land.

( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that disputed land has been in possession of his grandfather, father and himself for the last about 60 years. He alleged that his grandfather s name was recorded in sethwar since 1330-F (1920 A. D. ). His grandfather constructed a house, cattle shed and other buildings fifty years ago. While so, the second respondent issued the order dated 2-1-1989 ordering eviction. The petitioner alleges that though the land is described as abadi Sarkari, it is meant for construction of houses. By 1987 itself, about Acs. 9. 00 of land was occupied by villagers for construction of houses and the remaining acs. 2. 00 was allotted to various other villages; Abadi land or Gramakantham land is earmarked only for construction of houses and permission for construction of houses is deemed as grant by the Government for the purpose of construction of houses. The petitioner s family is in possession of the land since 1330-F. (1920 A. D. ). and it is deemed as ryotwari tenure which includes not only agricultural lands but also land used for residential, cattle shed and other agricultural purposes. Therefore, the occupation of the land by the petitioner s family is deemed to be ownership. By reason of long occupation, it is alleged, the petitioner s family has acquired title to the disputed land. The second respondent passed orders dated 2-1-1989 ordering eviction. The petitioner filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), khammam, who by order dated 31-1-1995 dismissed the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed present writ petition.

( 3 ) THE second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that R. Muralidhar Reddy, father of the petitioner who was ex-Sarpanch of the village occupied an extent of Ac. 1. 14 gts. in the disputed land and utilized the same for construction of house and cattle shed. The petitioner s grandfather encroached government land though they are not entitled to occupy the same. The land in sy. No. 97 is Abadi and meant for the purpose of construction of dwelling houses by landless poor persons and construction of house by the petitioner s family cannot render the illegal possession valid. It is stated that there are 69 houses in an extent of Acs. 7. 07 gts. belonging to Backward classes and an extent of Acs. 2. 00 was assigned for house sites by the MRO. The petitioner or his father cannot have any claim over the disputed land. The petitioner s occupation over the said land is unauthorized. The MRO, therefore, initiated proceedings under the A. P. Land encroachment Act, 1905 ( the Act ).

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, Sri k. Pratap Reddy, submits that by reason of long standing occupation, the petitioner has perfected his title. When there is a bona fide and genuine dispute over the title, the respondents cannot invoke the provisions of the Act and evict the petitioner from the land treating him as an encroacher. The government have to approach the Civil court by filing appropriate suit. Secondly, the learned Counsel contends that for the last about 60 years, the petitioner s family is in occupation of the land and the Government cannot invoke the provisions of the Act after long lapse of time. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of a. P. v. T. Krishna Rao\ Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document