Natural justice in summary eviction proceedings: Collector's order and hearing were mandatory before forcible removal of encroachments.

Government land, including tank-bed land, remained vested in the State even after possession was handed over to another public authority for public use, so proceedings under the land encroachment law could still continue. Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was treated as a special summary power for group encroachments, but its exercise had to satisfy fairness and natural justice. Affected persons were entitled to a hearing at the appropriate stage, and where immediate action was taken, at least a post-decisional hearing was required. The District Collector had to pass the requisite order of immediate eviction; action taken only by the authorised officer was unlawful, and the eviction proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the land in question was government land vested in the State and whether the Collector retained power to proceed under the land encroachment law notwithstanding handing over of possession for public purposes; (ii) Whether action under Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 could be taken without complying with the requirement of hearing and without an order of immediate eviction by the District Collector.

Issue (i): Whether the land in question was government land vested in the State and whether the Collector retained power to proceed under the land encroachment law notwithstanding handing over of possession for public purposes.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated government land, including tank-bed land, as vested in the State. The fact that possession had been handed over to another public authority for use did not divest the State of title. The proceedings were, therefore, maintainable on the footing that the land continued to be government property.

Conclusion: The contention that the Collector lacked jurisdiction because title had been divested was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether action under Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 could be taken without complying with the requirement of hearing and without an order of immediate eviction by the District Collector.

Analysis: Section 7A was treated as a special summary power for group encroachments, but its exercise had to conform to fairness and non-arbitrariness. The rule of audi alteram partem was read into the first stage of the process, subject to urgency. After the demand to vacate, the affected persons had to be given an opportunity of hearing, or at least a post-decisional hearing where immediate action was indispensable. The second step, namely the order of immediate eviction, had to be made by the District Collector herself. Action taken only by the authorised officer without such an order was not in accordance with the statute and violated natural justice.

Conclusion: The impugned eviction action was held illegal for want of the Collector's order and denial of the requisite hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the eviction proceedings already taken were quashed as unlawful, while the State was left free to proceed afresh in accordance with Section 7A after giving the affected persons an opportunity of hearing and passing the requisite order.

Ratio Decidendi: Even under a special summary power to remove group encroachments from government land, the statute must be read as requiring fair hearing at the appropriate stage and a mandatory order by the competent authority before forcible eviction can be lawfully undertaken.

---