The petitioners are proprietary concerns and Cinema Theatres at Miyapur. The Tahsildar, Sherlingampalli Mandal – 3rd respondent, issued a show-cause notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act (for short ‘Land Encroachment Act’) on 10-09-2010 alleging that the petitioners constructed a building covering the Full Tank Level (FTL) of an irrigation tank and a Nala to an extent of Ac.0.04 guntas of land in Survey No.71 of Miyapur Village. According to him, the property so encroached is vested in the Government under Section 24 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act (for short ‘Land Revenue Act’). The petitioners were required to show cause as to why, they be not evicted from the encroached portion of the land.

2. The petitioners submitted explanation on 25-09-2010. It was stated that the theatres were constructed on the basis of a permission granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District under the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955, and the Rules made thereunder. The petitioners also stated that a writ petition, taken up as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), challenging the permission accorded to them was dismissed by the High Court. They stated that the land in Survey No.71 is owned by them and that the show cause notice is vague. Ultimately they requested the 3rd respondent to drop further action. It was mentioned that the proposed action may constitute contempt of Court.

3. The 3rd respondent passed a detailed order, dated 20-05-2011, obviously, under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act. She referred to the gist of the notice, the explanation and other submissions made in response thereto. It was observed that under the guise of the orders of stay, obtained in Writ Petition No.22323 of 2010, filed against the Municipal Corporation, further construction was being made contrary to the spirit of the order. It was ultimately, mentioned that the construction made over Ac.0.04 guntas of land, which vested in the Government, under Section 24 of the Land Revenue Act, is contrary to law and required the petitioners to remove the same within seven days from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioners challenge the said order.

4. The petitioners pleaded that the entire construction was made on a patta land, on the basis of a permission accorded by the Government and that there is absolutely no basis for issuing the notices or passing the impugned order. The petitioners contend that once it is not disputed that the petitioners are the owners of the land, the mere fact that Nala is passing through a portion of it does not vest portion of the land in the government. As regards the contention about making of illegal construction, the petitioners contend that an application for regularization of unauthorized construction has been made and at any rate, the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

5. The 3rd respondent filed two counter–affidavits; one dealing with the contents of the writ petition, and the other narrating the factum of the petitioners, proceeding with the construction, even after receiving the proceedings. The 3rd respondent states that the Cinema Theatres were constructed on the strength of a permission said to have been granted by the Government, totally covering a Nala, which is a feeder channel to the irrigation tank, inspite of the fact that the land covered by the Nala is vested in the Government. It is further stated that though the permission accorded by the Government was for construction of Theatres, the petitioners made huge unauthorized construction, without any permission from any authority under the guise of an interim order passed by this Court. It is also stated that the very fact that an application for regularization is made, discloses that it was made unauthorisedly even while the construction of theatres itself is surrounded by controversy. The 3rd respondent pleaded that the construction was made covering FT