HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17068 of 2008
Date: April 28, 2014
Between:
1. S. Khadar Basha & 11 others.
… Petitioners And 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & 2 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17068 of 2008
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are permanent residents of Aragonda Road, Santhapet, Chittoor Town. Their ancestors occupied Government poramboke land in Survey Nos.164 and 165 of Mangasamudram Revenue Village, wherein they erected huts and living with their family members. When the 2nd respondent tried to evict them from the said land, the petitioners filed suits for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. But, the suits were dismissed observing that the municipality shall rehabilitate the plaintiffs by showing a site for all the plaintiffs for erecting huts in the site shown by the Municipality within municipal limits and more convenient for residential purpose and till such time the Municipality shall not evict them. The said judgment was passed on 30.04.1983. Thereafter no attempt was made by the 2nd respondent to evict the petitioners. The petitioners were given ration cards and photo identity cards. In the ‘Prajalavaddaku Palana’ held in the years 1989 and 1990 the District Collector and other officials found that the petitioners are eligible landless house holders and recommended for allotment of D-Form pattas. Accordingly, D-Form pattas were assigned to them. Pursuant to the said D-Form pattas the petitioners erected permanent constructions and obtained drinking water connections also from the 2nd respondent. While so, the 2nd respondent issued a notice of encroachment in the month of September 2004 and asked the petitioners to submit their explanations within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioners submitted their D-Form pattas, electricity bills, municipal water bills and tax receipts etc., and requested the 2nd respondent to drop the proceedings. The petitioners understood that the 2nd respondent dropped the proceedings. But, surprisingly the 2nd respondent sent a notice on 14.06.2007 asking the petitioners to remove the constructions voluntarily and vacate the premises within 15 days, failing which they would do so and recover the costs from them. The 2nd respondent came to the locality on 31.7.2008 with police aid and started demolition of houses by disconnecting electricity supply. But, on the intervention of elders in the locality the act of demolition was postponed by granting time till 07.08.2008. In those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the land in Survey Nos.164 and 165 of Mangasamudram Village is a Government poramboke land. The land under endowments is the playground of th e PNC Municipal Hig h School, Santhapet. The 2nd respondent admits that the petitioners filed suits in which the Municipality was directed to show alternative sites for rehabilitation of the encroachers before evicting them, while dismissing the suits. After dismissal of the suits, the 2nd respondent addressed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor, to allot house sites so as to enable the Municipality to evict the encroachers. On repeated requests made by the 2nd respondent, the revenue authorities issued house site pattas under the ‘Indiramma Housing Programme’. Even though they were granted house sites and pacca houses, the encroachers were not willing to vacate the houses in the Municipal High School play ground. In those circumstances only, the 2nd respondent is taking steps to evict the encroachers from the play ground by force. The Municipality has never assigned any door number to any of the encroachers and no facilities were provided to the encroachers. The encroachers were provided house sites and also pacca houses for their rehabilitation. But, the 2nd respondent stated that they have no knowledge about assignment of D-Form pattas to encroachers and the Municipality has not given its consent for assigning the Municipal High School play ground. The 2nd respondent further states that pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P. No.18158 of 2006, the Municipality allotted Rs.12.00 lakhs for protection of school play ground by constructing a compound wall and the work was entrusted to a contractor. The construction of the compound wall was completed for the entire ground except on the road side because of encroachments.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that even though the 2nd respondent has stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were allotted separate house sites and sanctioned pacca houses, no documents or title or possession was given to the petitioners and the petitioners were not inducted in any of the houses. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that a vague statement was made in the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent without giving details of the particulars of allotment made to the petitioners.
5. From the pleadings it is evident that the petitioners occupied the land belonging to the Municipal High School play ground and in pursuance of the directions of this Court in W.P. No.18158 of 2006, the Municipality spent Rs.12.00 lakhs for construction of compound wall leaving the road side portion due to pendency of the present writ petition. The suits filed by the petitioners were also dismissed. Admittedly, the petitioners are not having any title, but in view of the observations made in the suits, the 2nd respondent undertook to provide alternate accommodation to the petitioners. In pursuance of several requests made by the 2nd respondent, the revenue authorities issued house site pattas and also sanctioned pacca houses under ‘Indiramma Housing Programme’.
6. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to communicate the petitioners with regard to the allotments made in their favour and thereafter only take steps for their eviction to the allotted sites by showing possession of the allotted sites/houses. Till such time, the petitioners shall not be evicted forcibly, except in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 28, 2014 BSB
14 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.17068 of 2008
Date: April 28, 2014
BSB