IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11284 of 1999 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.LAKSHMANA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners are owners of an extent of Acs.2.40 cents of land in Survey No. 47/6(P) of Rajahmundry. The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, the respondent herein published notification dated 20-03-1999 under Section 3 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act’). Thereafter, he issued notice to the petitioners herein as required under proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 3. The petitioners submitted their reply on 06-04-1999. It was pleaded that certain temporary structures were raised by the labour who are attending to the work of crushing of stones and removal of gravel etc., and in view of the fact that the activity was stopped, the area is being evacuated. According to the petitioners, the temporary structures were only over an extent of 30 cents and even for eviction thereof, suit O.S No. 857 of 1996 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry was filed. The respondent was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners and passed an order dated 24-04-1999 rejecting their objections. The petitioners challenge the same. The petitioners contend that the temporary structures came over the land when it was not part of municipality and once the land has acquired urban value, the digging activity was discontinued and some of the occupants have vacated. It is also stated that for eviction of the remaining persons, the said suit was filed. The respondent filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the proceedings were initiated on finding that total hygienic conditions were prevailing spoiling the atmosphere in the surroundings and that the explanation offered by the petitioners is not satisfactory. Heard Sri Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The land of the petitioners was in the sub-urban area of Rajahmundry town. For the last few decades, the activities of removal of gravel and crushing of stones were undertaken in the surroundings. The workers therein are said to have put up their temporary structures on part of the land. Inasmuch as the regular structures were not raised and amenities were not provided, the conditions were naturally unhygienic. The respondent sprung into action and invoked the provisions under the Act. Though the Act was aimed at discouraging the emergence of slums, over a period, it has only become a device to put a premium on illegal occupations. That, however, is a different aspect. The petitioners categorically stated that after the erstwhile municipality was upgraded to municipal corporation, the land became part of it and in that view of the matter, the activity of digging of gravel and crushing of stones was stopped over the land. The impugned order does not disclose that any local inspection was made by the time the order was passed. It is also matter of record that apart from evicting some of the occupants over the land, the petitioners have filed suit O.S No. 857 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Rajahmundry for eviction of the occupants. Therefore, the accusation against the petitioners that they did not take any steps to evict the occupants does not appear to be correct. Be that as it may, the respondent has to examine the matter afresh before taking any final decision. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and it is left open to the 2nd respondent to visit the area and pass fresh order, after giving opportunity to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 05-12-2008 ks