ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “To issue an order or direction, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the notice dated 10.06.2021 issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 0.70 cents in Sy. No. 232 situated in Tirumandyam village, Chittoor District contemplating to evict the petitioner summarily as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notice dated 10.06.2021 issued under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 0.70 cents in Sy. No. 232 situated in Tirumandyam village, Chittoor District and pass such other order or orders.” 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 dated 10.06.2021 was issued under Section 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 Section 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 vs. 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 Section 7 of the Madras Act, invoking summary procedure to evict the petitioner from the land, requested to allow the writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that a notice dated 10.06.2021 was issued under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905, requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that a notice dated 10.06.2021 was issued under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905, requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. In fact, the A.P. Land Encroachment Act is in force, but instead of following the procedure under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, notice was issued under the Madras Act 03 of 1905, which is not applicable to the present alleged encroachment. 6. On perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that no specific date and time is fixed for submitting explanation in terms of Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, hence, notice is incomplete. On this ground, the notice dated 10.06.2021 is liable to be set aside. 7. However, when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, it is the obligation of the State to approach the competent Civil Court and obtain relief for eviction of the petitioner or removal of objectionable encroachments. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao (referred supra). In the said judgment, the Apex Court candidly held that the Government, in summary proceedings, cannot unilaterally decide its own title over the property, and their remedy is only to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of title. 8. If the said principle is applied to the present facts of the case, remedy open to the 4th respondent to approach the competent Civil Court to establish the title and for recovery of the possession. Hence, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao (referred supra). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed, except by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Thummala Krishna Rao (referred supra) and Rame Gowda (Dead) by LRs. vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by LRs. 2004 (1) SCC 769 . 9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.