Important Point – Court cannot ignore mandate of legislature or statutory authority and read into concerned provision principles of natural justice.

1. The present writ petition questions the notice dated 31.07.2015 issued by the fourth respondent under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. A contention is raised by the petitioners with regard to the applicability of the Act for their land, which is stated to be covered by approved layout with a compound wall with structures and which is not in the nature of water body, road etc. Petitioners also assert ownership and possession for over 100 years and rely upon grant of layout by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board way back in 2008 and also on the no objection certificates issued by the Revenue and Military authorities. Petitioners also contend that merely because the State thinks and treats the aforesaid land as State Government land, merely based upon certain entries in the GLR records and the Defence Estate Officer, cannot empower the State Government to apply the provisions of the Act to claim the land. It is stated that the remedy under the Act is only summary in nature and the Act applies where the title of the Government is undisputed where encroachment is found.

3. The other substantial contention raised is that before issuance of the impugned notice, the District Collector/second respondent had written a letter dated 28.06.2015 to the Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board asserting claim over the subject property and requiring the CEO to cancel the building permission granted by the Cantonment Board to the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that in the teeth of the aforesaid letter of the District Collector, the impugned notice issued by the Tahsildar under Section 7 of the Act would only be an empty formality, as the Tahsildar is subordinate to the District Collector and the entire issue is prejudged and pre-decided, as the primary as well as the appellate authority under the Act is subordinate to the District Collector and cannot come to a contrary conclusion.

4. In support of the aforesaid contention, petitioners claim that they are owners of the subject land and the layout was duly sanctioned, the Revenue Department of the State also issued NOC on 21.08.2008, which on the face of it acknowledges the title of the petitioners and that earlier the petitioners had filed WP.No.22575 of 2010 seeking to restrain the revenue authorities from interfering or demolishing any structures. In that writ petition, on 20.04.2012, an interim direction was granted directing the revenue authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners without following due process of law. The said writ petition is pending. It is stated that despite the aforesaid interim order, letters were written by the Tahsildar to the General Officer Commanding, Head Quarters Andhra Sub Area; the Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the Sub Registrar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad asserting title whereupon the petitioners had filed another WP.No.23607 of 2012 challenging the said letters wherein also this Court suspended all the three letters vide interim order dated 24.08.2012. Apart from this, when there was physical interference by the military authorities, when the petitioners were developing the land as per layout sanctioned, various writ petitions were filed, being WP.No.14286 of 2013, WP.No.385 of 2014, WP.No.3991 of 2014 and WP.No.12842 of 2015, which are also stated to be pending. In addition to that, questioning the letter written by the District Collector dated 20.06.2015 to the CEO asserting title and to cancel the building permission granted to the petitioners, WP.No.19401 of 2015 was filed.

5. The last of the writ petitions, referred to above, was heard by me and disposed of by order dated 13.07.2015 holding, in the relevant paras, as follows:

“11. It is evident from the said letter that it is only an assertion of title by a person interested in claiming title, which in this case, is State Government and has to be treated only as a claim on behalf o