HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P.No. 27480 of 2009 DATE: 19.12.2014 Between:
G. Ramaiah and 8 others .. Petitioners And
1. The District Collector
2. The Revenue Divisional officer
3. The Tahsildar
4. The Vice Chairman, Tirupathi Urban Development Authority .. Respondents O R D E R:-
None appears for the petitioners. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
Perused the counter affidavit filed by the then Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District and also the additional counter affidavit of the incumbent in office.
The petitioners pray for mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the petitioners’ house bearing Nos.20-3-235/A/6A1, 20-3-199/A4, 20-3- 235/A/6A2, 20-3-211/3A, 20-3-200/A2, 20-3-199/A2, 20-3-
205/A6, 20-3-209/A6/2 and 20-3-202/A/4 in R.S.No. 698/2 situated at Siva Jyothinagar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District without notice and without due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are living below the poverty line and eking out livelihood as daily wage earners. In implementation of the policy decision of the Government to provide small extents of house-plots, the 3rd respondent conducted enquiry into the eligibility criteria of the petitioners and recommended their cases for allotment of house-sites. It is stated that the 3rd respondent allotted 88.88 square yards of land in R.S.No. 698/2 at Siva Jyothinagar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi to the petitioners sometime in the year 2004. It is stated that from the date of assignment, the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the assigned land. The petitioners constructed houses and the house numbers are allotted by the Municipality. The petitioners claim to be paying house tax to Tirupathi Municipality. When the matter stood thus, it is complained that the respondents have no power or authority to demolish the houses without issuing notice or affording opportunity to the petitioners. The proposed dispossession or demolition of the houses is for widening the road. From the above circumstances, the petitioners complain breach of constitutional rights. This Court, through order dated 17.12.2009, while admitting the writ petition, ordered as follows:
“There shall be interim direction to the respondents not to interfere or demolish the petitioners’ houses bearing Nos. 20-3- 235/A/6A1, 20-3-199/A4, 20-3-235/A/6A2, 20-3-211/3A, 20-3-
200/A2, 20-3-199/A2, 20-3-205/A6, 20-3-209/A6/2 and 20-3-
202/A/4 in R.S.No.698/2 situated at Siva Jyothinagar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, without following the due process of law.”
One V. Kanaka Narasa Reddy, the then Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. A reading of the counter filed by him is a matter of concern to the question in issue arising under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counter affidavit does not refer to any of the averments stated in the writ affidavit. The tenor is better appreciated with its reproduction:
“I deny various averments made by the petitioners which are all misconceived and self-serving. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed since the petitioners have made false allegations, since absolutely there is no interference by the Revenue Officers and there was no attempt neither to dispossess nor demolish the houses of the petitioners. The allegations made in the writ affidavit are false and therefore I deny the said averments.”
This Court, having considered the stand of the 4th respondent, reference to assignment, etc. at least for the sake of record is not made, directed the respondents to verify the ground position and file additional counter affidavit.
In response to the said direction, the incumbent in the office, Sri I. Subrahmanyam filed additional counter affidavit. The counter affidavit categorically denies each and every one of the allegations of the writ affidavit. The door numbers furnished by the petitioners are stated to be not in existence. No dwelling houses are in existence in Sy.No.698/2. The local enquiries, it is stated, further reveal that the door numbers stated in the affidavit are unknown to the people residing in the neighbourhood. A panchanama showing the ground position as on date is referred to. Further, the house-site pattas referred in the affidavit were granted on 12.12.2003 to beneficiaries in Sy.No.1 of Akkarampalle village, but not Tirupathi Urban Mandal. The pattas relied upon by the petitioners are stated to be forged and fabricated and construction of buildings is equally fallacious. The land at Siva Jyothinagar in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents is vacant and intended for communal purposes.
The reference to the counter affidavit filed by the then Tahsildar and incumbent are certainly contradicting with each other. As the petitioners failed in proving their case, this Court is not granting any relief and the writ petition is dismissed. This Court, considering the anomalous pleadings by the then Tahsildar, directs the 1st respondent – District Collector to enquire into whether by choice or design the then Tahsildar tried to withhold available information to facilitate the petitioners to get favourable orders from the Court or it was a bona fide omission on his part and depending on the outcome of report, appropriate action is taken within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
S.V. BHATT, J 19.12.2014 bcj