THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.7602 of 2005 Between:
1. Korupurolu Surya Ganapati Rao, and others PETITIONERS AND
1. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief.
“….to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of respondents in demolishing our houses on 3.03.2005 as illegal and arbitrary by consequent restoring the possession of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.249-5A, 249-5B, 249-5C, 249-6A, 6B, 249-6D, 249-1D, 249-7E, 249-7F, 249-7G, 249-7H, 249-7I, 249-7J, 249-8A, 249-8C, 249-8D and 249-8E, situated at Dibbapalem, Hamlet of Pedagantayada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam….”
2. Heard Smt. D. Prasanna Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for respondents and perused the material available on record.
3. According to the petitioners they are the owners of lands in Sy.Nos.249-5A, 249-5B, 249-5C, 249-6A, 6B, 249-6D, 249-1D, 249- 7E, 249-7F, 249-7G, 249-7H, 249-7I, 249-7J, 249-8A, 249-8C, 249-8D and 249-8E, situated at Dibbapalem, Hamlet of Pedagantayada Village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The sum and substance of the present writ petition is that without recourse to law and without issuing any notification, the respondents demolished the structures as such they are entitled for restoration of the possession of the said lands.
4. This Court on 7.04.2005 granted order of status quo as to the nature and possession of the land in question. Responding to Rule Nisi issued by this court, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, stating that the authorities issued a notification under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of land admeasuring Ac.40.24 cents in Sy.No.232 of Dibbapalem hamlet of Pedgantyada Village, Visakhapatnam District, for providing back up area to Gangavaram Port, and the said notification does not include the schedule lands. It is further averred in the counter that the petitioners have erected sheds with a view to rehabilitation benefits from the Government and to get jobs in Gangavaram Port. It is also stated that the municipal authorities issued notices on 31.01.2002 under Sections 42(1) and 43(1) of the A.P. Urban Area Development Act, 1975 to the President of the unauthorised Society, viz., Sri R. Venkataramanarao to remove the sheds. The petitioners approached this Court by way W.P.Nos.18080 of 2002, 18085 of 2002 and 18087 of 2002 against the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and the same were dismissed by this Court on 9.10.2002 directing the respondents to issue notices under the relevant provisions of law. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioners filed O.S.No.244 of 2002 and also I.A.No.782 of 2002 and the same was dismissed on 13.07.2004 with a direction to take eviction by following the prescribed procedure. Subsequently, the Municipal Commissioner, Gajuwaka issued notices to the Society President on 2.03.2005 for removal of unauthorised sheds, and in view of the absence of President a panchanama was held in the presence of people available in the locality and as no families were residing in the sheds, the Municipal Commissioner, Gazuwaka went to the site on 3.03.2005 and demolished the same with the powers vested with him under the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1975. It is also stated in the counter that the Collector has nothing to do with the eviction, and the eviction was carried out by the Municipal Town Planning Staff, and Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam and Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada were present only to maintain law and order situation. It is further stated that unauthorised structures were removed by the municipal authorities by duly following the procedure contemplated under law. It is also averred that the petitioners in violation of the Municipal Laws constructed unauthorised sheds and they did not get the plan approved and that the sheds were removed as per law.
5. It is also to be noted that this Court as long back as on 16.06.2008 vacated the interim order. No reply affidavit has been filed so far by the petitioners, controverting the averments in the counter affidavit. Despite categorical pleadings in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, saying that the municipal authorities pressed into service the provisions of the Municipalities Act and removed the structures, no steps have been taken so far to implead the Municipal authorities. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said aspect is fatal to the case of the petitioners.
Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that if there is any claim with regard to the rights over the land, the petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedies available to them under law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
23rd July, 2014 Js.