Judgment : This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 22.11.2011, passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and to quash the same together with the consequential notice, dated 8.12.2011. The brief facts are as under: The petitioner society was allotted 100 acres of land situated in Sy.No.156/1 of Mylardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District, in the year 1968 on payment of land value. After getting the layout approved by the Director of Town Planning, the members of the society were allotted plots and most of the allottees have constructed houses. Long thereafter, the District Collector, Rangareddy by proceedings dated 6.2.2009 allotted 4 acres of land situated in Sy.No.156/1/P of Mylardevpally Village to the Hyderabad District Administration for the purpose of construction of houses to persons belonging to weaker sections. Pursuant thereto, the possession was handed over to the Deputy Executive Engineer (Housing) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 12.2.2009. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner society filed W.P.No.6288 of 2009 contending that the said 4 acres of land forms part of the 100 acres of land allotted to the society and that the same was earmarked under the layout for construction of school, college, playground and etc., for the colony people. The said writ petition was opposed by the respondents therein contending that the petitioner society was in possession of Ac.130-09 guntas of land as against 100 acres allotted to it. It was also alleged that the society had encroached upon the excess land to an extent of Ac.30-09 guntas and that the 4 acres of land allotted under the proceedings dated 6.2.2009 forms part of the said excess land. By order dated 11.4.2010 this Court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 6.2.2009 holding that the impugned proceedings were vitiated by non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. However liberty was granted to the State for taking appropriate action for recovery of possession of excess land in possession of the petitioner society as per law. However liberty was granted to the State for taking appropriate action for recovery of possession of excess land in possession of the petitioner society as per law. Against the said order, though the Government preferred Writ Appeal No.326 of 2010, it was dismissed by a Division Bench by judgment dated 29.3.2011 making it clear that recovery of possession of the excess land alleged to be in occupation of the society had to be done only by following due process of law but not unilaterally. However, WAMP.No.143 of 2011 filed by the Government seeking permission to conduct survey of the entire extent of Sy.No.156/1 of Mylardevapalli was allowed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, the 4th respondent – Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, issued a notice dated 22.8.2011 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, the Act) informing the petitioner society that as per the survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor in the presence of the representatives of the society, it was noticed that the layout prepared by the society covered 130 acres as against 100 acres that was actually allotted to the society and accordingly calling upon the petitioner to hand over the excess extent of 30 acres. A sketch map was also enclosed to the said notice demarcating the alleged excess land. The petitioner society gave a reply dated 5.9.2011 denying the allegation of encroachment of 30 acres of land over and above the 100 acres allotted to it. It was stated that the petitioner had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the land in respect of which the layout was approved by the Director of Town Planning right from the year 1968 to the knowledge of the Government and therefore the proceedings now initiated under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act were not maintainable. It was also stated that the serious dispute regarding the title had to be decided by the Civil Court and it was not a matter for summary eviction under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. It was also stated that the serious dispute regarding the title had to be decided by the Civil Court and it was not a matter for summary eviction under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act. Though no further enquiry was held and no final order was passed, the 4th respondent issued a notice dated 21.11.2011 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act calling upon the petitioner society to hand over the 30 acres of land allegedly encroached by it within one day from the date of service of the said notice and authorizing the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Rajendranagar Mandal to carry out eviction and to take possession. The said notice was served on the petitioner society on 23.11.2011. Challenging the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.31193 of 2011 contending that no order was passed on the objections filed by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act. This Court by order dated 25.11.2011 while adjourning the matter to enable the Government Pleader to get instructions directed that status quo obtaining as on that date should be maintained for a period of one week. On 2.12.2011, the Government Pleader while representing that the respondent No.4 had passed a final order on 22.11.2011, conceded that the impugned Section 6 notice dated 21.11.2011 was issued even prior to the said order. Recording the statement of the Government Pleader, W.P.No.31193 of 2011 was allowed by this Court and the notice dated 21.11.2011 was quashed. Thereafter, the order of eviction dated 22.11.2011 passed by the respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act was served on the petitioner society through post on 27.11.2011 followed by notice dated 8.12.2011 directing the petitioner to hand over the 30 acres of land within 15 days. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.11.2011 as well as the subsequent notice dated 8.12.2011. The impugned order is assailed in the writ petition primarily on the ground that in view of the serious dispute regarding title of the land in question it is not open to the respondents to resort to the summary remedy for eviction provided under the Land Encroachment Act. The impugned order is assailed in the writ petition primarily on the ground that in view of the serious dispute regarding title of the land in question it is not open to the respondents to resort to the summary remedy for eviction provided under the Land Encroachment Act. It is pleaded by the petitioner that no survey was conducted and no panchanama was prepared as sought to be contended in the impugned order and that the allegation that the petitioner was in occupation of excess land was without any basis. Disputing the authenticity of the sketch plan furnished by the 4th respondent, it is further contended that the fact that the petitioner society has been in occupation of the entire land that was allotted and handed over it and that the layout was approved for the entire land shows that the allegation of encroachment is false and without any basis. It is also contended that in view of the long possession of the petitioner society for the past more than 43 years to the knowledge of the Government, the dispute with regard to the title has to be decided only by the Civil Court and that the respondents cannot direct eviction invoking the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act by taking a unilateral decision with regard to title. The 4th respondent filed a counter-affidavit raising a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 against the impugned order of eviction. While reiterating the allegation that the petitioner society had encroached upon 30 acres of Government land in addition to the land allotted to it, it is further pleaded that the 4 acres of land allotted in favour of the District Manager (Housing) for the purpose of construction of houses to weaker sections forms part of the said 30 acres of excess land in occupation of the petitioner society. It is also pleaded that in terms of the interim directions granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.326 of 2010 permitting construction of houses under JNNURM Scheme in the 4 acres of land allotted to the District Manager (Housing), Ground + 3 storeyed buildings had already been constructed. It is also pleaded that in terms of the interim directions granted by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.326 of 2010 permitting construction of houses under JNNURM Scheme in the 4 acres of land allotted to the District Manager (Housing), Ground + 3 storeyed buildings had already been constructed. It is alleged that the petitioner society refused to receive the notice dated 10.6.2011 issued by the 4th respondent informing the petitioner society about the survey proposed on 13.06.2011. Therefore another notice dated 18.6.2011 was served on the petitioner society on 25.06.2011 and ultimately the survey was conducted on 27.6.2011 and 15.7.2011 which revealed that the petitioner society is in unauthorized occupation of 30 acres over and above the 100 acres of land allotted to it. Therefore, the show-cause notice, dated 22.11.2011 was issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act enclosing the sketch showing the details of the encroachment and after considering the explanation of the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of being heard, the impugned order dated 22.11.2011 was passed under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. The petitioner’s claim that there is a serious dispute of title has been denied and it is contended that as revealed in the survey the petitioner had encroached upon 30 acres of Government land abutting the land allotted to it and therefore the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act were rightly initiated. I have heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner society and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. So far as the preliminary objection raised by the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to exhaust the efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal is concerned, it is to be noticed that the impugned order is assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the very initiation of the proceedings under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act is without jurisdiction. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that the statutory remedy of appeal is not an effective alternative remedy since the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the appellate authority under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act is a subordinate to the 2nd respondent – the District Collector, Rangareddy District who had initially passed the order dated 6.2.2009 allotting 4 acres of land to the District Manager (Housing) which was the subject-matter of the earlier writ petition. The law is well-settled that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for granting relief in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held in a catena of decisions that the alternative remedy does not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies where the writ petition is filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there is a violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice or where the order is wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged {vide Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 ) }. As noticed above, the petitioner in the present case is questioning the impugned order of eviction passed under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act on the ground that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents have no power to direct summary eviction under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. Hence the alternative remedy of appeal cannot be held to be a bar. Moreover, the matter has a chequered history and having regard to the nature of the orders that were passed by the respondents earlier, I also find substance in the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the remedy of appeal available under Section 10 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act is not an effective alternative remedy. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Coming to the merits of the case, though the land allotted to the petitioner society was only 100 acres, a clear finding was recorded by this Court in W.P.No.6288 of 2009 that the petitioner society has been in possession of Ac.130-09 guntas. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Coming to the merits of the case, though the land allotted to the petitioner society was only 100 acres, a clear finding was recorded by this Court in W.P.No.6288 of 2009 that the petitioner society has been in possession of Ac.130-09 guntas. However the case of the petitioner society is that the said land with specific boundaries was put in possession of the society in terms of the allotment made in its favour in the year 1968 and since then the society has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the entire land. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that a layout was approved by the Director of Town Planning vide L.P.No.84/1973 for the entire land in their occupation and that the members of the society have constructed their respective houses and residing therein for the past more than 43 years to the knowledge of the Government. Thus, according to the petitioner society, it has perfected its title by way of adverse possession even in respect of the alleged 30 acres of excess land in their occupation. Therefore, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents have power to evict the petitioner society summarily in exercise of the powers conferred by the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. In GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. THUMMALA KRISHNA RAO ( AIR 1982 SC 1081 ) the Apex Court after considering in detail the scope and object of the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act held that the summary remedy provided under the said Act cannot be availed of in cases where complicated questions of title arise for decision. The relevant portion from the judgment of the Apex Court may be extracted hereunder: “Para7.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 unauthorised occupation of any land which is “the property of the Government”. In regard to property described in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 2, there can be no doubt, difficulty or dispute as to the title of the Government and, therefore, in respect of such property, the Government would be free to take recourse to the summary remedy of eviction provided for in Section 6. A person who occupies a part of a public road, street, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like, is in unauthorised occupation of property which is declared by Section 2 to be the property of the Government and, therefore, it is in public interest to evict him expeditiously, which can only be done by resorting to the summary remedy provided by the Act. But Section 6(1) which confers the power of summary eviction on the Government limits that power to cases in which a person is in unauthorised occupation of a land “for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3”. Section 3, in turn, refers to unauthorised occupation of any land “which is the property of the Government”. If there is a bona fide 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 the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. .. …… Para8.… … … 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 unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. 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 unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bona fide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law.” In the light of the ratio laid down in the above decision, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner society would contend that the question as to the title claimed by the petitioner society in respect of 30 acres of the alleged excess land cannot be decided in a summary enquiry contemplated under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. On the basis of the material available on record, it appears to me that the petitioner society has made out a prima facie case to establish its long possession in respect of the alleged excess land of 30 acres. The question as to whether the petitioner society has perfected its title to the said land on account of its long possession has to be decided in a properly constituted suit. It is also relevant to note that the Division Bench in W.A.No.326 of 2010 found that the 4 acres of land allotted to the District Authority under the proceedings, dated 6.2.2009, was in the midst of the colony as per the approved layout. According to the petitioner society, the said land is earmarked for the construction of a high-school, college, playground, etc. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that a supplementary setwar was issued in respect of the land in question and on the basis of the same the name of the petitioner society was also incorporated in the pahani of Mylardevpally under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that a supplementary setwar was issued in respect of the land in question and on the basis of the same the name of the petitioner society was also incorporated in the pahani of Mylardevpally under the provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. In the light of the said material, this Court is convinced that the matter involves a bona fide dispute of title between the petitioner society and the Government and therefore it is not a matter where the Government can take a unilateral decision in its own favour by taking recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. It is true that while allowing W.P.No.6288 of 2009 this Court left it open to the State to take appropriate action for recovery of possession of excess land in possession of the petitioner society as per law. However, in the light of the finding recorded above that the petitioner society has made out a bona fide claim to the land in question, the summary remedy prescribed under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, in my considered opinion, cannot be held to be due process of law for evicting the petitioner society. In fact the Division Bench while dismissing W.A.No.326 of 2010 made it clear that the recovery of possession has to be done only by following due process of law but not unilaterally. However, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while bringing to the notice of this Court the interim order, dated 17.8.2010 in W.A.M.P.No.746 of 2010 in W.A.No.326 of 2010 wherein the respondents herein were allowed to go ahead with the construction over the disputed land of 4 acres, submitted that the respondents have already constructed Ground + 3 storeyed buildings which are in the finishing stage and therefore unless the respondents are permitted to complete and allot the same to the members of the weaker sections under JNNURM Scheme, it would result in waste of public money. I do not find any substance in the said contention. In the interim order dated 17.08.2010 itself it was made clear by the Division Bench that the respondents herein may proceed with the construction subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal. Ultimately the said W.A.No.326 of 2010 ended in dismissal. I do not find any substance in the said contention. In the interim order dated 17.08.2010 itself it was made clear by the Division Bench that the respondents herein may proceed with the construction subject to outcome of the Writ Appeal. Ultimately the said W.A.No.326 of 2010 ended in dismissal. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to claim any equities at this stage. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 22.11.2011 as well as the subsequent notice dated 8.12.2011 are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, this shall not preclude the respondents to establish their title to the excess land of 30 acres and seek recovery of possession in a properly constituted suit. No costs.