THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24084 of 2000 Date: 31.01.2008 Between: The Ex. Servicemen’s Association, Madanapalle, Regd. No.228/76 rep by Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy ……PETITIONER(S) A N D 1. The Commissioner, Madanapalle Municipality, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and others ……RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.24084 of 2000 ORDER: The Ex-Servicemen’s Association, Madanapalle, filed this petition questioning the action of the respondents in trying to evict its members from the places where it was permitted to occupy the portions for running business, without providing alternative accommodation as per the directions given in W.P.No.8141 of 1885. 2. The case of the petitioner, as disclosed from the affidavit filed in support of the application, is that it is an Association registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and that it made a representation to the first respondent requesting to allot a piece of land on the western side of the Red-Cross Road, Madanapalle, which is adjacent to the banks of Bahuda River situated at Chittoor Bus-stand, Madanapalle, and that the Municipality vide its resolution No.516 dated 08.03.1977 granted the permission sought and the first respondent vide his proceedings in L.Dis.No.733/ 81/77 dated 31.3.1977 granted permission under Section 193 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act), authorising the persons recommended by it to erect bunks to do petty business and eke out their livelihood and from then onwards its members are carrying on their business and obtained electricity connection and are paying the relevant taxes, charges, licence fees etc. But, due to political interference, the revenue and municipal authorities, with a view to grab the property given to it, planned to evict its members therefrom without providing alternative accommodation to them and so it filed W.P.No.8141 of 1985 seeking suitable directions wherein certain directions were given. Thereafter, the respondents, without taking any steps to provide alternative accommodation to its members, are trying to evict its members without even issuing a notice. Hence, this petition. 3. None of the respondents filed counter affidavits though the writ petition is of the year 2000. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner Association is that in view of the order of this Court in W.P.No.8141 of 1985 dated 13.09.1988 the first respondent which is bound to provide alternative accommodation and has to issue notice before evicting its members has to provide alternative accommodation to its members, but the respondents, without following the due procedure and without showing any alternative accommodation to the members of the petitioner Association, are trying to evict the members of the petitioner Association by force due to political reasons and so the petitioner may be granted the relief sought. The contention of the learned standing counsel for first respondent is that the petitioner Association was initially granted permission to construct 10 bunks in an area of 10'-0x10'-0 on a rent of Rs.10/- per square metre from 01.04.1977 for a period of one year as per the Resolution No.516 of the Municipal Council dated 08.03.1977 and even as per the case of the petitioner Association, that period of lease was extended by one more year through the letter dated 20/09/1978 subject to payment of Rs.1,010/- towards bunk fees, but several persons claiming to be the members of the petitioner Association occupied that site and raised 22 bunks on the banks of Mugguralla Vanka and are causing hindrance to traffic, and as the site that was given to the petitioner Association is near a four road junction, and due to increase in the traffic there is congestion, first respondent, with a view to widen the road, wanted to evict the members of the petitioner Association and the petitioner Association, with a view to forestall such eviction, filed this petition by making false representations and as no alternative site for housing the members of the petitioner Association is available, petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. The fact that it was granted permission under Section 193 of the A.P. Municipalities Act (the Act) to raise bunks is admitted in para-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. Section 193(6) of the Act empowers the Commissioner to evict an occupier even without notice, after expiry of the period of permission. In this case, except producing the letter dated 20.09.1978, addressed by the first respondent to its members, directing them to pay an amount of Rs.1,010/- towards bunk fees for 10 bunks for the year 1978-79 within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, petitioner did not produce any other document to show that there is an extension beyond 1978-79. 6. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the first respondent is that at present there are 22 bunks. That fact is not denied or disputed by the learned counsel for petitioner. Except producing a receipt dated 17.04.77 showing payment of Rs.2,550/- for 1 to 10 bunks in S.No.229/1, no other document is produced by the petitioner to show that it can raise fresh bunks for its members. When permission was granted to erect only 10 bunks in an area of 10 x 100', under what authority the members of the petitioner Association erected 22 bunks contrary to the permission granted in 1977, by occupying an area over and above the permitted area is not explained by the petitioner Association. So, it is clear that all the persons who occupied the area beyond 10 x 100' granted vide resolution dated 08.03.1977, are but encroachers of the road margin. 7. The contention that in view of the order in W.P.No.8141 of 1985 dated 13.09.1988 the members of the petitioner Association cannot be evicted unless an alternative site is shown to them cannot be accepted because the order passed in W.P.No.8141 of 1985 reads “The aforestated ten persons have been continuing in possession pursuant to the resolution passed by the Municipality. Since it is causing traffic inconvenience to the prevailing public, action was taken. Under those circumstances, the respondent is directed to provide alternative sites in any unobjectionable area and direct the ten persons, members of petitioner -Association to shift their businesses to that place. If there is no unobjectionable area, it is open to him to give notice to remove the bunks and then take action. The writ petition is accordingly ordered.” Therefore, showing an alternative site is not a condition precedent for evicting the members of the petitioner Association. That apart, when permission was granted to erect only 10 bunks and licence fee was paid only for 10 bunks, how 22 bunks came into existence on road margin is not explained by the petitioner. So, it is clear that the additional 12 bunks are but encroachments on the road margin. When there is an encroachment on the road margin, Commissioner can evict the encroachers. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that unless the occupiers of the area are provided alternative space elsewhere they cannot be evicted from the place in the occupation of its members. 9. Petitioners are continuing in possession of the property only by virtue of the interim orders granted in this Court, probably even without paying any fees. 10. In the above circumstances, I find no merit in this petition and hence the petition is dismissed. First respondent can evict the encroachers by taking recourse to due process of law. No order as to costs. -------------- 31.01.2008 Cvrk