THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.23722 of 2006 DATED:29-01-2008 BETWEEN: Goluguri Suryanarayana Reddy & 10 others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Government of A.P., Rep., by its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation & Command Area Development appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kothapeta in particularly directing eviction of the petitioners from the dwelling house on PWD Right Bank Canal at 14/01 K.M. at Ravulapalem village and mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal, and arbitrary. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd respondent leased out an extent of nearly 200 to 256 sq.yards of land to the petitioners on the PWD Right Canal Bund near about 14/01 M.M. Ravulapalem in the year, 1967 for a period of three years to be renewed from time to time on payment of lease amount. Petitioners raised permanent structures in the said allotted land and they have been paying the lease amount regularly. Whileso, 2nd respondent informed the petitioners that the lease will not be renewed and the petitioners were asked to vacate by 30-11-2006 without giving any notice and without following any due process of law. 4. Counter has been filed by the respondents stating that the land in question was given on lease to various persons during the year, 1967 and the lease was initially for a period of three years and it was never renewed from time to time and none of the petitioners are staying in the sites and the shops constructed by them are given on rent to various persons and the petitioners made certain constructions without any permission and leased out the same without any authority of law. As the lease was only for the purpose of carrying out agricultural activities, but not for the purpose of making any constructions or to lease out the same to some others it is stated that the lease was never renewed after 1988-89 and during the course of inspection of the canals, it was observed that the canal bed was silted up and the side shoals were formed which was obstructing the canal flow and not discharging the designed discharge of the canal which affects the tail end ryots ayacut fields, and hence excavation of the canal to the designed section is required. Accordingly, the department asked all the canal berm occupants along the canal to vacate the sites for the purpose of carrying out the above work. It is stated that petitioners earlier filed W.P.No.2821 of 2000 contending that the respondents are demolishing their houses without issuing any notice and accordingly the said petition was disposed of directing the respondents to serve notices under the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and take appropriate action in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of the said order, dated 20-02-2001. Accordingly, notices have been served on the encroachers and none of the encroachers filed any objection and pursuant to the interim order obtained by the petitioners the encroachments could not be removed and the repair work could not be carried on. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that this Court in W.P.16280 of 1996, dated 21-06-2006, following various judgments of the Apex Court, held that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in cases where wrong orders are issued in favour of others, wrong orders cannot be perpetuated with the help of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the basis that such wrong orders were earlier passed in favour of some other persons and that, therefore, they will be discrimination against others if correct orders are passed against them. It is stated that such petitioners who are in continuous unauthorized possession occupying the public land were saddled with exemplary costs. Admittedly petitioners have been temporarily permitted to occupy for a period of three years and there is no renewal of the lease. It is stated that petitioners illegally made shops and constructions and sublet in favour of others. As the said land belongs to the Irrigation Department, petitioners cannot obstruct the repair work, but however pursuant to the orders passed earlier, notices were given to the occupants and as no representations/applications are filed I am of the opinion that petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly, writ Petition is dismissed vacating the earlier interim order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 29th January, 2008. Tsy