ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the notice dated 15.09.2019, which is affixed on the wall of the petitioners’ house directing them to vacate the land and structures in respect of Ac.1-59 cents in Sy.No.54 of the 1st petitioner and further an extent of Ac.1-44 cents in Sy.No.55 of Patrapalli village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District, issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar.

2. The petitioners claim to be the descendants of one Rama Goud, who supposedly purchased this property under sale deed dated 31.05.1936. The 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.1-59 cents situated in Sy.No.54 and the 2nd petitioner is the owner of Ac.1-44 cents in Sy.No.55 situated in Patrapalli Village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the 1st petitioner was issued a rythwari patta on 13.07.2000 for Ac.1-59 cents and the 2nd petitioner was issued a rythwari patta for Ac.1-44 cents in Sy.No.55 on 13.07.2000. The names of the petitioners were also mutated in the revenue records. Pattadar Passbooks and Record of Right books were also issued. Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the copies of the passbooks and 1-B Record / Namuna that is issued to buttress his arguments that the petitioners are in settled possession and enjoyment of the property. He also submits that initially a suit in O.S. No.903 of 2005 was filed in the I Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Chittoor, for bare injunction and later after seeking permission from the Court the suit for declaration of title bearing O.S.No.303 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners and consequential relief of injunction was also sought. “A” schedule in the suit is the property involved in the Writ. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the 1st respondent is the District Collector, Chittoor and the 2nd respondent is the Mandal Revenue Officer in O.S.No.303 of 2005. He also points out that in the written statement filed the defendants have raised various pleas including the classification of the land. He contends that even in the civil suit it is contended that the property is Cheruvu.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also points out that in the vacate stay petition the respondents have filed RSR of the village, which shows that the land in Sy.Nos.54 and 55 is classified as “Cheruvu”. However, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the certified copy of the RSR filed by the petitioner in which it is shown that the land is not Cheruvu. This is filed with the rejoinder. Learned counsel also relies upon the Field Measurement Book (FMB) and other documents, which are filed to contend that the land in Sy.Nos.54 and 55 is not classified as Cheruvu.

5. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the summary procedure under the Land Encroachment Act cannot be followed and that the writ petition should be allowed and the order passed, which has been affixed on the wall directing the petitioners to vacate the premises, should be quashed.

6. In reply, learned Government Pleader for Revenue argues the matter at length. He relies upon the documents filed the counter affidavit. It is stated that as per the RSR the land in Sy.Nos.54 and 55 is classified as Cheruvu only. He also points out that the petitioners are clearly encroachers and their relationship to the person, who is allegedly purchased the property in 1936, is not established. Even the said document of 1936 is an unregistered document. Therefore, he submits that the same cannot be relied upon to support the case of the petitioners. He also states that the sale deed is a fake and created document, since in 1936 Chittoor Sub-Registrar was not found. Rythwari patta relied on by the petitioners is also strongly disputed by the learned Government Pleader. It is also stated that the 4th respondent in the writ is not competent to issue Inam patta and that only an Inam Deputy Tahsildar can issue Ina