Judgement Key Points

( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals, filed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land eviction, Hyderabad, and the Tahsildar, taluk Urban, Hyderabad, arise out of a common judgment allowing writ petitions no 1414 and 1413/77. The respondents are the writ petitioners Notices under sec. 8 of the A P Land Encroachment Act were issued to the petitioners in W P no 1414/77 and 1413/77 on 1-5-73 and 3-6-76 respectively, calling upon them to show cause why they should not be evicted from certain extents of land in khairatabad village forming part of S Nos 9/15, 9/16 and 9/17. They submitted their representations on 11-6-76 claiming that they are in possession of the land as permanent lessees under two separate registered lease deeds executed on 8-12-56. The petitioners complain that the authorities are seeking to evict them even before the completion of the enquiry and found to be encroachers within the maaning ot the act The petitioners prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from evicting and interfering with their possession. The case of the petitioner in W P No 1414/77 is that under the agreement dated 28-11-52 he was inducted into possession as a permanent lessee and thereafter a regis- tered lease deed was executed in his favour on 11-12-57. Whereas the case of the petitioner in W P No 1413/77 is that she was inducted into possession as a lessee undar a registered lease deed dated 8-12-56. The Government, however claims that these extents forming part of S. Nos 9/15, 9/16 and 9/17 are government lands and the respondents, being encroachers, are liable to be evicted summarily under Sec 6 of the Act. The Tahsildar is the competent authority to take proceedings under the Act, and therefore, no writ, as such, would lie.

( 2 ) JUSTICE Chinnappa Reddy (as he then was) by a judgment, following an earlier judgment of this court in meharunnissa Begum v. State of Andhra pradesh 1970 (1) A. L. T. 88 in which a division Bench of this Court affirmed the view taken by the learned single judge, held that the statute enables the Collector or the Tahsildars to take action under the act only in cases where the occupation is recent or where the occupant by some action of his indicated that he admits his occupation to be unauthorised. The view taken by this court in Meharunnissa begum vs State of Andhra Pradesh (cited supra) was approved by the Supreme court in Govt. of A P vs T Krishna Rao air 1982 SC 1081. The Supreme court has laid down that "if there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property. , the government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belongs to it and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Sec. 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title". The court further held that the summary remedy prescribed by Sec. 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated questions of title, That procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for evicting the alleged trespassers. The court further observed : "it is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bonafide. But duration of occupation is relevant in. the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time 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". Giviny examples of property in respect of which summary proceedings under Sec. 6 and 7 of the act could be taken, their Lordships pointed out that "a person w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document