DIGIVINTI SUBRAMANYAM REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is in long possession and enjoyment of the property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed, and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. While the matter stood thus, notice dtd. 10/6/2021 was issued under Sec. 7 of Madras Act 03 of 1905 to the petitioner.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in long possession and enjoyment of the property having purchased the same under registered sale deed and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by exercising power under Sec. 7 of the Madras Act. When the petitioner is in settled possession of the property, the remedy open to the respondents is to approach the CiviL Court in view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in "Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081". Instead of approaching the Civil Court to establish the title by the 4th respondent, he issued notice under Sec. 7 of the Madras Act, invoking summary procedure to evict the petitioner from the land, requested to allow the writ petition.