THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26334 of 2014 Dated : 23.09.2014 Between:
Gonthina Demudu S/o.Late Chinnayya, Hindu, Aged 62 yrs, Occu : Labour R/o.D.No.27-4-18, Old Karnavaripalem, Nadupur Post, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District & 2 others .. Petitioners And Rastriya Ispath Nigam Ltd., The Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, (A Government of India Undertaking) Visakhapatnam-530 031 Rep., by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director .. Respondent This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26334 of 2014 ORDER :
The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners together owned land to an extent of Ac.9-44 cents in Survey Nos.215/1 to 4, 5A, 6A, 6B, 14-A, 15 to 18 and 19-A. Out of it Ac.07-39 cents was acquired, as early as in the year 1980 for the purpose of establishment of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. After the said acquisition the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of Ac.2-05 cents.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in instituting this writ petition is that the respondent-Visakhapatnam Steel Plant is constructing compound wall and the said wall is being constructed on the land belonging to the petitioners after excluding a portion of land which was already acquired and such action is illegal. No material is placed in support of the said contention that the land which was not acquired is now sought to be taken over by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and compound wall being constructed.
3. On instructions learned Standing Counsel submits that at the time of acquisition, a detail lay out was given to the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant which would indicate the area which is handed over to the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, which is in possession of it. In order to protect the property of Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, and in order to avoid encroachment, the Steel Plant has taken up construction of compound wall covering the entire area belonging to it.
4. Learned counsel, on instructions, asserts that the respondent is not seeking to acquire any additional land and not trying to encroach upon the land belonging to the petitioners which was not acquired.
5. Learned Standing Counsel also placed before this Court a decision of this Court in W.P.No.27271 of 2013 concerning the same issue. In the said writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners was that the respondents are trying to cover the road which is already existing and preventing the access to the property of the petitioners. It was the stand of the respondent Steel Plant that the road which petitioners were claiming is not a public road but it is a private road formed by the Steel Plant for its convenience within its property and petitioners have no right to claim access to the said road.
6. Having regard to the submissions made this Court passed the following order :
“Whether the road in question is a public road or private road, whether the petitioners have no other access but for this road, whether or not the petitioners have encroached on land belonging to the first and second respondents, are all questions of fact which can appropriately, be examined by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a Writ Petition of this nature.
Leaving it open to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, this Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
7. In the instant case also the petitioners claim that under the guise of acquisition of land of the petitioners, though entire land was not acquired, respondent is trying to construct a wall thereby illegally encroaching upon the land of the petitioners, which fact is denied by the respondent-Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. Whether the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the land which they claim as belonging to them which is not acquired and whether the respondent-Steel Plant is seeking to construct a compound wall on the land belonging to the petitioners are questions of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court and which can appropriately be examined by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. As held by this Court in the above writ petition, it is inappropriate to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in entertaining the writ petition of this nature.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to agitate their grievance as warranted by law. It is always open to the petitioners to assert that the respondent is seeking to take possession of land which was not acquired by it and that it belongs to the petitioners.
9. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
23rd September, 2014
Rds
P.NAVEEN RAO,J