Judgment · High Court · 2004

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the land covered under Survey No. 100 measuring about Ac.450-00, Miyapur village, Ranga Reddy district is a government land covered with rocks and hillocks. That the petitioners are poor persons eking out livelihood by working as labourers had cleaned the boulders and rocks and leveled the land and living therein since 1988 by constructing small houses admeasuring about 65 to 68 sq.yards. The petitioners claim to have made representations on 18-7-1998 and 29-9-2004 to the District Collector for assignment of said land and that no action was taken on the said representations. The petitioners stated to have made applications to the authorities on 8-8-2004 requesting to regularise the house sites/houses in their favour in accordance with the terms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.515 dated 19-4-2003. While so, some third parties filed a Special Leave (Civil) CC No.7673 –7675 /2003 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the order dated 8-9-2003, which reads as under: “Delay condoned in both matters.

Issue notice. Status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile.” Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed Writ Petition No.18900 of 2004 on the ground that the respondents are trying to dispossess them from the subject land. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.10.2004, the operative portion of the said order reads as under:

In view of the same, the respondents cannot remove the encroachments made prior to the status quo order by the members of the petitioner association without disposing of their representation and without following the due procedure. However, the respondents are at liberty to remove the encroachments identified subsequent to the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court after due notice.

Thereafter the 4th respondent issued a notice dated 18-11-2004 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act III of 1905 directing the petitioners herein to remove the structures within 7 days from the date of service of said notice.

Questioning the said notice on the ground that the same is violative of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and orders passed by this Court in W.P.18900 of 2004, the present writ petition is filed. Pursuant to notice, first respondent filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that pursuant to directions of the second respondent vide letter dated 20-8-2003, the possession of the land covered under survey Nos. 100 and 101, was handed over to the first respondent for development, under a panchanama and that the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed status quo order on 8-9-2003 and that subsequent to the said order the petitioners herein made encroachments over the land in question and they are not covered by the order of the Apex Court. It is further stated that said encroachments were obstructed by respondents authority and the some of the encroachers approached this Court by filing W.P.633 of 2004, which was disposed of with direction as under: “The respondents are at liberty to remove the encroachments identified subsequent to the status quo order after due notice to the petitioners.

Encroachers which were not covered by the status quo orders shall not be removed until the representation of the petitioners are disposed of.” It is further stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to above directions, a survey was conducted and identified about 109 owners of the huts, which came up after the status quo order of the Apex Court and notices were issued to them. The 4th respondent filed counter affidavit narrating the chronology of events took place from 1988 till the orders passed by the Supreme Court and stating that the petitioners herein are not parties to the proceedings before the Apex Court and that a committee comprising of Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherlingampalli, Municipal Commissioner, Sherlingampalli and the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department inspected the huts/houses in survey Nos. 100 and 101 of the Miyapur village on 9- 11-2004 to identify the illegal encroachments and submitted its report to the District Collector and that the petitioners had made encroachments recently and no applications for regularization of the petitioners are pending with the authorities.

It is also stated that the case of the petitioners cannot be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 and 515 since the structures were not existing by 1990 and are made very recently. On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it is incorrect to state that the petitioners had made encroachments recently and are not covered by the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.515 dated 19-4-2004. It is further stated that there is sufficient material to prove the possession of the petitioners and without considering such evidence, the respondents are resorting to evict the petitioners from the subject land. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that since a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, they can very well approach the authorities and substantiate their claim by furnishing the material to prove their possession. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Mr.S.V.Bhatt for first respondent.