JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 4th respondent issued under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). 2. The petitioner contends that the subject lands were purchased by him through a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1960, from one Sri Govindacharyulu, and mutation of their names was also effected in Revenue Records. Vide notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioners were asked to submit their explanation as to why they should not be evicted from the subject lands as they were occupying the Government lands. The petitioners have submitted their explanation vide reply dated 14.01.2020, stating that their predecessors' in title was a freedom fighter, in recognition of the same patta was granted in his favour in the year 1952, and that the petitioners have purchased the said land in the year 1960, from him for valuable consideration. It is further contended that the land was purchased much prior to the coming into force of the Act 9 of 1977. 3. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and another, AIR 1982 SC 1081 , contends that the manner in which the impugned order passed is a summary one, and if any steps are to be initiated against the petitioners for alleged violation, it should be by way of civil suit and not in the manner the impugned order was passed. 5. As observed from the impugned proceedings, the order does not contain any reasons as to how the authority had come to a conclusion that the petitioner is an encroacher. In order to apply the provisions of the Act, there must be a reasonable belief that the subject lands are Government lands. The petitioners have stated that they have purchased the subject lands in 1960, and filed a like document in support of their case. In the light of the said submission made by the petitioners, in reply to the show-cause notice, there is an obligation on the part of the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders. The petitioners have stated that they have purchased the subject lands in 1960, and filed a like document in support of their case. In the light of the said submission made by the petitioners, in reply to the show-cause notice, there is an obligation on the part of the Tahsildar to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders. As observed from the impugned proceedings, the same appears to have been passed in pre-meditated manner, which is clear from the following observations of the 4th respondent : "The reasons stated in the reply letter are not satisfactory and not validated with the records available in our office. Moreover, the above said land has been used for serving a great public purpose i.e., distribution of house site pattas to landless poor people in the Pippa Village. Therefore it is crystal clear that he has no right or title over the Government land and he is in un-authorized occupation. Hence the following orders are issued." 6. From the above, it can be deduced that the order does not refer to any of the submissions of the petitioner nor does it refer to the sale deed which was executed as long back as in the year 1960. The impugned order does not refer to any of the contentions raised. When the petitioner has produced a document of the year 1960, and contends in support of the said document that he has been in continuous occupation and possession, and contends that their predecessor in title has acquired title to the land by way of assignment of patta in the year, 1952, even before the promulgation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, there is an obligation on the part of the 4th respondent, as he being the quasi-judicial authority under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, to enquire and give a finding on the basis of the documents furnished before him. 7. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and another (supra), observed as under : "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., which was affirmed by a Division Bench. 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 bond 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 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." 8. A careful reading of the provisions of the Act, makes it clear that the procedure provided under the Act, for eviction of a person, who is in unauthorized occupation of land being the property of Government is a summary procedure by issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, observed that the power under Section 6(1) of the Act, for summary eviction, is limited to the cases, in which a person is in un-authorized occupation of a land, for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3 of the Act. It was observed that Section 3 of the Act in turn refers to un-authorized occupation of any land, which is the "property of the Government". It was observed that Section 3 of the Act in turn refers to un-authorized occupation of any land, which is the "property of the Government". It was further observed that if there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government, to any property, the Government cannot take unilateral decision in its favour that the property would belong to it, and on the basis of such a decision, take recourse to the summary procedure provided under Section 6 of the Act, for evicting the person, who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title. 10. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners claimed to have purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 19.08.1960. Since then, he is stated to have been in possession and enjoyment of the land without any challenge to his title. It is only in the year, 2019 that the petitioner was alleged, to have been in un-authorized occupation of the land belonging to the Government, to which the petitioner has submitted his objections by filing the necessary documents i.e., the registered sale deed. The petitioner is bona fide claimant of the subject land and thus it can be said that there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to the said property inasmuch as the petitioner has claimed to be in possession of the property since 1960, through a registered sale deed from his vendor, nearly 60 years, prior to issuance of the impugned notices. If the Government was conscious of its title over the land, it would have initiated proceedings, soon after alleged possession of the land belonging to the Government. The intention of the Legislature in enacting the statute i.e., the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act 3 of 1905), is for providing measures of checking an un-authorized occupation of lands, which are the property of Government, recognizing the earlier practice of imposing penal/prohibitory assessment/charge. Therefore, the procedure under the Act, contemplates an immediate action for eviction of the un-authorized occupants. 11. In the facts of the present case, the occupation of the petitioner over the subject land was open for a considerable period of 60 years. Therefore, the possession of the petitioner is a bona fide possession, and the same can be considered as bona fide dispute between the Government and the petitioner. 11. In the facts of the present case, the occupation of the petitioner over the subject land was open for a considerable period of 60 years. Therefore, the possession of the petitioner is a bona fide possession, and the same can be considered as bona fide dispute between the Government and the petitioner. Thus, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and another (supra), the recourse to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, is miss-conceived and summary procedure provided under Section 6 of the Act, cannot be resorted to. The Government can only establish its title to the property, through an adjudication by Courts of law. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the proceedings of the 4th respondent dated 28.01.2020. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.