TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (3) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following facts : 2. We are concerned in these appeals with three groups of lands situated in Habsiguda, Hyderabad East Taluk, Andhra Pradesh. Those lands are : R.S. No. 10/1, which corresponds to plot No. 94 admeasuring 10 acres and 2 guntas, R.S. No. 10/2 which corresponds to plot No. 104 admeasuring 9 acres and 33 guntas; and R.S. Nos. 7, 8 and 9 which correspond to plot No. 111 admeasuring 26 acres and 14 guntas. These lands belonged originally to Nawab Zainuddin and after his death, they devolved on Nawab Habibuddin. Sometime between the years 1932 and 1937, certain lands were acquired by the Government of the Nizam of Hyderabad under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act of 1309 Fasli, the provisions of which are in material respects similar to those of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands were acquired for the benefit of the Osmania University which was then administered as a Department of the Government of Hyderabad. The University acquired an independent legal status of its own under the Osmania University Revised Charter, 1947, which was promulgated by the Nizam. 3. The question whether the aforesaid three plots of land were included in the acquisition notifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the plots summarily under the provisions of the Act of 1905. The learned single Judge dismissed those Writ Petitions observing : The question whether the lands with which we are concerned in the writ petition were acquired by the Government or not and the question whether the Government had transferred its title to the University or not are questions which cannot properly be decided by me in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appropriate remedy of the petitioners is to file a suit to establish their title. The learned Judge held that : Though the title of the Government is not admitted by the alleged encroacher, there is a finding by the Civil Court that there was encroachment by the alleged encroacher. That is sufficient to entitle the Government to initiate action under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. 6. Three appeals were preferred to the Division Bench against the judgment of the learned single Judge, two of them being by the petitioners in one writ petition and the third by the petitioner in the other writ petition. The Division Bench, while setting aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, held : Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector, Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar and any property so forfeited shall be disposed of as the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar may direct. Section 7. Before taking proceedings under Section 5 or Section 6, the Collector or Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar as the case may be shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorised occupation of land being the property of Government, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under Section 5 or Section 6. 8. It seems to us clear from these provisions that the summary remedy for eviction which is provided for by Section 6 of the Act can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are in unauthorized occu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated question of title. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for evicting the respondents. 9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far. That was also the view taken by the learned single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Meherunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. [1970] 1 ALT 88 which was affirmed by a Division Bench. AIR 1971 AP 382 It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions....