The two petitioners in this writ petition mount a challenge to an order dated 07-06-2011 passed by the Tahasildar, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, in terms of Sectrion 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (henceforth referred to as ‘the L.E.Act’) for their eviction, from the land said to be belonging to the Government unauthorisedly occupied by them.

2. The case of the petitioners is this; the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of 108.69 square meters of land covered by premises No.16-1-24/60/1, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed dated 29-07-1980 bearing document No.775/81. The 2nd petitioner purchased another extent of 309.35 square meters of land, which also forms part of the same premises, through another registered sale deed dated 29-07-1980, bearing document No.8101/80. Both the petitioners purchased the respective extents of land from Sri G. Balaiah, who, in turn, purchased the same from one Sri Lakshminarayan, under a registered sale deed dated 17-12-1977, bearing document No.1449/80. The further case of the petitioners is that the premises is covered by a residential structure assessed to municipal property tax and has been provided with electricity, water and drianage connections. The land in question is situate in Revision Survey No.32 and in Town Survey No.5 of Saidabad Village, forming part of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area. Therefore, the petitioners claim lineage for their title to the sale deeds executed by Sri Lakshminarayan on 17-12-1977. The 3rd respondent Tahasildar issued two separate notices to both the petitioners on 28-04-2011 under Section 7 of the L.E.Act alleging that they were unauthorisedly in occupation of 180 square meters and 309 square meters of Government land. The petitioners contested the veracity of the claim of the Tahasildar through their representations received by the Tahasildar on 06-06-2011. As is now noticed, on the very next day, the impugned order has been passed by the Tahasildar. When an attempt has been made by the Tahasildar to evict the petitioners, they have earlier approached this Court and this Court has pointed out that even if the petitioners were to be assumed to have encroached upon the Government land, without taking recourse to law, they cannot be evicted. Since, not much turns on the previous history of the litigation, I do not prefer to dwell upon such an issue in further detail.

3. It is now contended by Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been in occupation and enjoyment of the respective parcels of land in their own right, having purchased the same for valuable consideration. There is, therefore, an essential dispute with regard to the title of the property between the petitioners on the one hand and the Sate on the other. Therefore, the summary proceedings initiated under the L.E. Act are ill suited for evicting the petitioners. Where there is a genuine dispute between the State and a citizen with reference to the title of an immovablel property, the normal recourse of securing a declaration from the competent civil court, ought to have been adopted by the 3rd respondent Tahasildar, instead of falling back upon the summary eviction procedure under the L.E. Act. Further, even the procedure contemplated by the L.E. Act has not been faithfully followed by the respondents and hence, the impugned order is liable to be declared as an illegal exercise.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) would submit that the land in question has been classified in the revenue records, namely, Pahani – Khasra Pahani from 1954-55 onwards as ‘Grave Yard’. Further, the town survey was conducted between the years 1965-70 under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and the findings of the survey have already been published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette. As per the town survey land record