As much as common questions of law are raised for consideration on same set of facts, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners herein have questioned the orders issued under Section 5-A (2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, by the respondents. Through the aforesaid orders, the respondent has ordered for removal of flats in a residential complex, namely ‘Archana Apartments’. As in all the writ petitions, identical orders are questioned, I refer to the facts as narrated in W.P.No.14417 of 2001.

3. One Smt. C.Kamsamma, claiming to be the owner and possessor of land to an extent of 600 square yards in the premises bearing No.1-11-252/1/E in Survey No.19 of Begumpet, has sold her undivided share to the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 26.10.1994, bearing document No.3071/94. After purchase of the said plot, the petitioner has entered into an agreement for construction of flat bearing No.204 and the same was constructed, and ever since, the petitioner is in its possession and enjoyment. As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that one Sri Mamilla Krishna Reddy, who was the father of Smt.C.Kamsamma, was the original owner and possessor of the land as he has purchased the same from its earlier owner one Sri Hzaratulla by a registered sale deed bearing document No.6041, dated 5th Aban, 1358 Fasli, and the said property is given to Smt.C.Kamsamma by way of pasupu kumkuma at the time of her marriage. Afterwards, when there was a claim by her sisters also for the property, the said Kamsamma had filed suit for declaration of title, in O.S.No.252 of 1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the said suit was decreed by a judgment and decree dated 15.03.1991. Thereafter, she entered into development agreement with M/s.Naveen Constructions on 4th of January 1993, to develop the said property and obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to construct an apartment complex, vide permission bearing No.415/12, dated 12th February 1993. The petitioner has availed housing loan from Canara Bank and having paid the said amount to the vendor of the land, she got constructed the flat in question and is in possession of the same by letting out to a tenant. At this stage, respondents have issued the notice dated 11th January 2001, in exercise of powers under Section 5-A (1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, alleging that the Airports authority has got surveyed the land in Survey No.15 and it was found that the building in question is constructed by encroaching upon its land to an extent of 570 Square yards, as such, directed the petitioner to remove these flats. Initially, the petitioner sent a telegram dated 13.02.2001, thereafter, through an Advocate, got filed a detailed representation dated 24.02.2001, questioning the authority of the respondents in invoking the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971. After filing of explanation by the petitioner, the respondents have issued the impugned notice dated 26.04.2001 in exercise of powers under Section 5-A (2) of the said Act, directing the petitioner for removal of her flat. In the aforesaid impugned notice, it is stated that the land in Survey No.15 of Begumpet village has been acquired for establishment of Hyderabad Airport by the then Civil Aviation Department by paying compensation, and as such, the said land is now in possession of the Airports Authority, as such, the land in Survey No.15 is the public premises and as the land in the said survey number is encroached by Archana Apartments, which are constructed in Survey No.15 but not in Survey No.19, the representation of the petitioner is not considered. Consequently, orders are issued for removal of said