T.Janardhana Subudhi v. The District Collector, Srikakulam and 2 others

Collector, Srikakulam for alienation of the said land in favour of the 3rd respondent and the same is pending consideration. The petitioner herein is said to have been in possession of Ac.0.12 cents and constructed a pucca building in an extent of Ac.0.01½ cents. It is stated that though the Mandal Revenue Officer said to have been sent proposals recommending his case for alienation, but the District Collector has not considered the same. Therefore, he seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the residential house building in an extent of Ac.0.01½ cents as illegal and to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of his application for alienation of said Ac.0.01½ cents as per market value. A counter is filed on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 stating that the land in question of an extent of Ac.1.00 was classified as Government land in the revenue records. The said land was previously assigned and later it was resumed as it was required for the public purpose i.e. for construction of the school and hotel of 3rd respondent. The contention of the petitioner that he was in possession of Ac.0.12 cents out of which he construction a building in Ac.0.01½ cents was denied. Even according to the petitioner also the said land is Government land which is sought to be alienated in favour of the 3rd respondent as per the request of the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the possession of Ac.0.01½ cents was already handed over in favour of the 3rd respondent in 2000 itself and the 3rd respondent has already constructed the school building and the school is running with play ground, except the small piece of the land which was illegally encroached by the petitioner. It is stated that the proposals of the petitioner for alienation of the Ac.0.01½ cents was forwarded to the District Collector by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the same were considered and rejected by endorsement Rc.No.329/2002A dated 14.02.2005. As the petitioner is an encroacher, the 2nd respondent has given a notice to the petitioner on 06.09.2002 directing to show cause why he should not be evicted from the encroached land for which the petitioner gave reply. It is stated that as his request was not considered by the respondents vide endorsement dated

14.02.2005, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the said encroachment is causing nuisance and unsafety to the 3rd respondent. As the land of Ac.1.00 was already handed over to the 3rd respondent for the public purpose i.e, for construction of the residential school for B.C Girls the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that the 3rd respondent residential school was established by the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Tribal (Agency) Area. The said land was declared as surplus land and was allotted for public purpose in favour of the 3rd respondent. Unless the campus is covered with compound wall, there is every possibility of the young girls being disturbed by intrusion of goondas and outlaws within the campus. It is the case of the petitioner that it will be very hard to safeguard the adolescent girls. The Government not only allotted the said land in favour of the 3rd respondent, but also provided funds for the purpose of construction of principal’s quarters and also boundary compound wall around the premises. The petitioner along with others attempted to cause interruption of the construction of the compound wall, and he has applied physical force and tried to utilize political influence. Therefore, the 3rd respondent filed a suit in O.S.3/2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tekkali and the learned Judge granted interim order of injunction. Suppressing these facts, this writ petition is filed. I am of the opinion that the as Government has already allotted the land in question in favour of the 3rd respondent and as the 3rd respondent has already made constructions therein, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, as claimed for. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated: 17.02.2011 Dsr ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J