ORDER:

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Certiorari calling for records relating to Notice dated 13.02.2015 vide RCA.No.130/2015, issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act issued by the 5th respondent and quash the same.”

This Court, on 02.04.2015, while admitting the writ petition, passed the order in WPMP.No.6449 of 2015, which is as follows:

“The writ petition is filed challenging the issuance of notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that he and his predecessors have acquired title to the suit land, which title almost dates back to the year 1942. Hence, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and another (AIR 1982 SC 1081) and Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Government of A.P., and others v. G. Padmavathi and others (1999 (4) ALT 209 (DB)), the petitioner’s counsel contends that the very invocation of Section 7 proceedings against the petitioner where there is a long standing possession and disputing his title is impermissible and ultra vires. He also contends that offering an explanation and raising objections, which have been raised in this writ petition, before the 5th respondent is a futile exercise due to the fact that the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the Special Chief S9ecretary, A.P., had addressed a letter dated 04.06.2013 to the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Krishna District at Machilipatnanm, wherein a prima facie, opinion has been formed that the said land belongs to the Government. The 5th respondent, being a subordinate officer, would not change his opinion and would not heed to the contentions which may be raised by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served by raising objections before the 5th respondent.

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the basis of instructions received from the Tahsildar, Nuzvid Mandal, submits that the petitioner may be directed to submit his explanation and raise objections before the 5th respondent and on considering his explanation, the 5th respondent would be passing speaking orders.

Having considered rival submissions, prima facie, in the facts of the case, I am satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by directing the petitioner to approach the 5th respondent by way of filing objections before him. A perusal of the instructions would reveal that the land in issue is situated at Sunkolluvari Khandrika village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District. As on today, it is an admitted fact that the enquiry as contemplated under the Estates Abolition Act and the Inams Abolition Act is yet to be completed. Further, the enquiry is under process after issuance of the notification on 27.05.2005 under the Inams Abolition Act. Admittedly, an extent of 240 acres is proposed to be settled under the Estates Abolition Act and notices to 37 people have been issued under Section 9 (1) of the Estates Abolition Act, for enquiry. In other words, as on today, it is yet to be determined as to who are the persons/institutions eligible to be given pattas either under the Estates Abolition Act or under the Inams Abolition Act.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, the subject land which is under possession of the petitioner is within the Sunkolluvari Khandrika village, the persons, who are entitled to pattas, are yet to be decided; and merely because the same has not been decided as on today, it cannot be straightaway said that the subject land belongs to Government. Further, the facts reveal that there is a serious dispute with regard to title of the property and in such a circumstance, and also in the light of the judgments referred to above, prima facie, the issuance of notice under Section 7 of t