GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus THUMMALA KRISHNA RAO & ANR.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 16-03-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
B 
c 
.D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
500 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
THUMMALA KRISHNA RAO & ANR. 
March 16, 1982 
[ Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARBNDRA NATH SEN, JJ. ) 
Andhra Pradesh Land Encrqachment Aci, 1905-S. 6-Prot1ision for .summary 
eviction of unauthorised occupant of government land-Existe11ce of bona fide 
dispute regarding title between government and occupant-Resort to summary 
remedy-Whether valid and legal? 
The Andbra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was enacted to check 
unauthorised occupation of government lands. Under s. 2 Of the Act all public 
roads, streets, lands, paths, bridges etc., are deemed to be government property, 
. Any person who is 'in unauthorised occupation of any· land which is the property 
of the government is liable to pay assessment as provided in s. 3 of the Act.-
Section 5 provides that any person, liable to assessment shall also be liable to pay 
an additional sum by way of penalty. Undei s. 6(1) the CoBector, Tahsildar or 
Deputy Tabsildar has the power to summarily evict any person unauthorisedly 
occupying any land for which be is liable to pay assessment under s. 3, after 
issuing a show ca.use notice as provided in s. 1. 
Some time between the years 1932 and 1937 certain lands were acquired 
by the Government of Nizam of Hyderabad for the benefit of a University. A 
question having arisen es to whether three specific plots of land had been included 
in the acquisition, the University filed a suit in 1956 praying for the eviction of 
the occupant. Th.is suit was dismissed in 1959 on the ground that one of the plots 
bad not been acquired by the Government and in respect of the other two plots 
the University had failed to prove its possession within 12 years before the filing 
of the suit. The trial court found that the heir of the original owner of the plots 
bad encroached on the said two plots in 1942. The judgment of the trial courr 
was confirmed by the High Court in 1964. The State Government was not a 
party to those proceedings. 
The University activated the State Government for summary eviction of 
the heir of the originaJ owner from the three plots of lands. The Tahsildar i:D.itia-
ted action and passed an order of eviction under s. 6(1) of the Act on December 
15, 1964. Appeals against the order were rejected by the Collector in 1965 and 
by the Revenue"Board in 1968. The respondents who pur<:hased tho plots during 
the pendency of the appeal before the Revenue Board were impleaded as parties 
• 
:"' 
ANDHRA PRADESH V. T.Jt. RAO 
501 
to the proceedings on the death of the heir of the original owner and their appeal 
from the decision of the Revenue Board was rejected by the Government in 
1973. 
The respondents challenged the order of eviction by a petition under 
Art. 226 which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court who held that 
the question of title to the property could not properly be decided by him under 
Article 226 but the fact that there was a finding by the Civil Court that there 
was encroachment by the alleged encroacher was sufficient to entitle the Govern-
ment to initiate action under the provisions of the Land Encroachment 
Act. 
The appeal of the respondents ms allowed by the Division Bench which 
bola that a dispute relating to as far back as 1942 could not be dealt with in 
summary proceedings under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. 
The summary remedy could not be resorted to unless there was an attempted 
encroachment or encroachment of a very recent origin; nor could it be availed 
of in cases where complicated questions of title ar·ose for decision. 
Dismissing the appeals, 
HELD : (I) The summary remedy for eviction provided by s. 6 of the 
Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in un· 
authorised occupation of any tand which is the property of ttie Government. If 
there is a bonpfide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, 
the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the 
.property belongs to it and on that basis take recourse to the summary remedy 
provided by s 6. In the instant case there was unquestionably a genuine dispute 
between the State Government and the respondents as to whether the three plOts 
of land had been the subject ~matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the then 
Government of Hyderabad, and whether the University for whose benefit the 
plots were alleged to have been acquired bad los
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.