THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.6080 of 2012

ORDER:

Heard Mr.Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 330 Sq.Yards in premises No.22-2-830/A/ 42, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad, having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed dated 14.06.1982 bearing document No.1191 of 1982 from K.Janaki Ram. The said Janaki Ram inherited the said property from his forefathers and he constructed the house in the said property and also paid the taxes as per demand made by the Municipal Corporation and also obtained electricity connection to the said property through Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board by order dated 17.10.1978. After having purchased the said property, the petitioner name was mutated in the municipal records and the petitioner also paid property tax to the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. Subsequently, the petitioner constructed building consisting of ground plus two floors in the subject property and thereafter deviations and illegal constructions were also got regularized by the Competent Authority vide proceedings in BRS No.429/C-4/W-12/2000 dated 31.10.2000. While it being so, without any power and jurisdiction, the respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for brevity, “the Act, 1905”) vide No.C/934/2010, dated 19.04.2011 stating that the petitioner illegally occupied the said property and it is an Inam land and further directed the petitioner to submit an explanation. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted an explanation to the respondent No.2 along with the documents to establish his title over the subject property. Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the documents, the respondent No.2 passed impugned order vide proceedings No.C/934/2010 dated 31.01.2012 and also directed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession of the property under the Act, 1905. While passing the impugned order, the respondent No.2 has not considered the objections raised by the petitioner in his explanation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities has no power to invoke the provisions of the Act, 1905 as the petitioner obtained building permission in the year, 1996 from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In spite of that the respondent authorities only basing on the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) entries issued impugned notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1905 and passed orders, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that mere basing on the TLSR entry, the respondent authorities came to conclusion that the land belongs to the Government. Moreover, the respondent authorities not shown any documents that the subject property belongs to the Government as per the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If there is any bonafide dispute of title between the Government and the individual, the proceedings under Land Encroachment Act shall not be initiated and they have to approach the competent Civil Court and establish their title and possession over the subject land as per the law of limitation and procedure and without following the same, they have initiated Land Encroachment proceedings in summary nature and the same is contrary to the orders of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court and requested to allow this writ petition by setting aside impugned orders in proceedings No.C/934/2010 dated 31.01.2012 issued by respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thumm