A summary eviction under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act cannot proceed if there is a bona fide dispute regarding land title, necessitating judicial adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

1. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (hereafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The petitioner contends that the subject lands were purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1960, from one Sri Govindacharyulu, and mutation of their names was also effected in Revenue Records. Vide notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioners were asked to submit their explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the subject lands as they were occupying the Government lands. The petitioners have submitted their explanation vide reply dated 14.01.2020, stating that their predecessors' in title was a freedom fighter, in recognition of the same patta was granted in his favour in the year 1952, and that the petitioners have purchased the said land in the year 1960, from him for valuable consideration. It is further contended that the land was purchased much prior to the coming into force of the Act 9 of 1977.

3. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and another , AIR 1982 SC 1081 , contends that the manner in which the impugned order passed is a summary one, and if any steps are to be initiated against the petitioners for alleged violation, it should be by way of civil suit and not in the manner the impugned order was passed.

5. As observed from the impugned proceedings, the order does not contain any reasons as to how the authority had come to a conclusion that the petitioner is an encroacher. In order to apply the provisions of the Act, there must be a reasonable belief that the subject lands are Government lands. The petitioners have stated that they have purchased the subject lands in 1960, and filed a like document in support of their case. In the light of the said submission made by the petitioners, in reply to the show-cause notice, there is an obligation on the part of the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders. As observed from the impugned proceedings, the same appears to have been passed in pre-meditated manner, which is clear from the following observations of the 4th respondent :

"The reasons stated in the reply letter are not satisfactory and not validated with the records available in our office. Moreover, the above said land has been used for serving a great public purpose i.e., distribution of house site pattas to landless poor people in the Pippa Village. Therefore it is crystal clear that he has no right or title over the Government land and he is in un-authorized occupation. Hence the following orders are issued."

6. From the above, it can be deduced that the order does not refer to any of the submissions of the petitioner nor does it refer to the sale deed which was executed as long back as in the year 1960. The impugned order does not refer to any of the contentions raised. When the petitioner has produced a document of the year 1960, and contends in support of the said document that he has been in continuous occupation and possession, and contends that their predecessor in title has acquired title to the land by way of assignment of patta in the year, 1952, even before the promulgation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, there is an obligation on the part of the 4th respondent, as he being the qua