The main legal point established in the judgment is that summary proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 cannot be sustained when there is a longstanding possession and a bona fide dispute of title between the parties.

ORDER :

(A. Abhishek Reddy, J.)

1. Aggrieved by the issuance of the notice dated 23.1.2012 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short, the Act) by respondent No. 5, the present writ petition is filed.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief is that, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs. 8.35 guntas in Survey Nos. 165/1, 165/2 and 165/3 of Donthanpally Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 1337/1993 dated 3.11.1993, 1317/1993 dated 25.10.1993 and 1318/1993 dated 25.10.1993. The petitioner claims that their vendors were in possession of the subject land even since prior to 1950 till the date of sale of the land to the petitioner. After the purchase, the petitioner had constructed buildings after obtaining permission from the statutory authorities including Gram Panchayat, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Director of Factories, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, etc., to run the oil industry in the name of Anagha Oil Industries Private Ltd. While so, the respondent No. 5-Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal, issued the impugned proceedings stating that the subject land is a Government land and the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the same. Petitioner had submitted a reply on 4.2.2012. However, no orders are passed thereon. The grievance of the, petitioner is that without passing any orders on the reply submitted by the petitioner, the official respondents are taking steps to forcefully dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri L. Ravi Chandran, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Sri K.R. Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. Perused the record.

4. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the notice which is impugned in the present writ petition is one without jurisdiction and that the official respondents cannot take recourse to the summary proceedings envisaged under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short 'the Act'). Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases have held that the official respondents cannot take recourse to the provisions of the Act when there is a bona fide dispute with regard to the longstanding title over the subject land. Learned Senior Counsel has taken this Court through the documents filed by him wherein he has relied on the pahanies from the year 1954-55 (khasra pahani) till the pahani for the year 2014-15 to buttress his contention that all the revenue records supported the case of the petitioner that the subject lands are private patta lands and that at no point of time the lands are shown as Government land. Hence, the issuance of the present impugned notice after lapse of more than 60 years is one without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the same. Learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the petitioner has purchased the subject land through registered sale deeds from the original pattadars, whose names are reflected in the pahanies from the year 1954-55. That after the purchase, the petitioner has been issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds, after due enquiry, by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner has constructed a factory encompassed with a compound wall after obtaining a valid building permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat. The Electricity Department has also provided necessary power connection and the petitioner is also paying property tax in respect of the subject property to the concerned Gram Panchayat. The Government of India (Ministry of Industries) has given the necessary permission for running of the factory and the Pollution Control Board has also issued No-Objection Certificate after duly verifying the premises of the factory. Further, to buttr