HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.485 of 2002 DATE:15-11-2010 BETWEEN P.Vijaya Kumar & Others …Appellants AND Government of A.P., rep. by Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No.485 of 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The appellants-writ petitioners obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show-cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued under Article 226 of Constitution of India after calling for the records in proceedings No.C2/4341/96, dated 27.3.2000 issued by the District Collector, Hyderabad and to quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the possession of the appellants in respect of land in Sy.No.74/8, Maredpally, Secunerabad. The appellants-writ petitioners claim that late P.Bhaskara Murthy, the husband of the second appellant and father of other appellants purchased an extent of Ac.7.20 gts. In Sy.No.74/8 under different registered sale deeds and since then they have been in possession of the same. The lay out submitted by late Bhaskara Murthy was approved by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and out of the same, Bhaskara Murthy sold some plots and that the purchasers also constructed houses. Since there were disputes between the Income Tax Department and late Bhaskara Murthy, certain plots were attached and some of the plots were sold in public auction. After selling the plots by Income Tax Department, some of the plots in an extent of 6400 sq.yds. in Ward No.10, Block No.4, Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar were kept vacant by late Bhaskara Murthy. Since then and after the death of Bhaskara Murthy, the petitioners are in possession of the same. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 20.10.1995 to regularize the land in possession of the persons/encroachers on certain conditions specified thereunder. In view of the same, appellants made a representation on 22.3.1996 to the second respondent seeking regularization of their possession and to confirm their title. The District Collector, by the impugned proceedings rejected the request of the appellants for regularization of their possession on the ground that the subject-land is required for public purpose i.e. for construction of a school building. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. When the matter is pending, L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 was filed by the Government before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order on the ground that the L.G.C. filed by the Government is already pending and therefore, the relief prayed by the appellants cannot be granted, giving liberty to the appellants to raise all the grounds before the Special Court constituted under the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the writ petitioners. Now, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the L.G.C. filed by the Government has been dismissed by the Special Court, against which, the Government filed a writ petition and the same is pending before this Court. In view of the dismissal of the L.G.C., the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their possession in respect of the subject-lands. Alternatively, the learned counsel contends that the appellants, who are the owners of the subject-land, under mistaken impression filed the representation before the second respondent- District Collector for regularization of their possession. In view of the dismissal of the L.G.C. holding that the appellants are not encroachers and that they are in possession of the land prior to 31.3.1990, the possession of the appellants has to be regularized. We do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that the regularization under G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 20.10.1995 is circumscribed by certain conditions enumerated thereunder namely, (1) the encroachment should be prior to 31.3.1990; (2) there shall be a residential structure existing on the land; (3) such encroachment should not be in violation of provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976; and (4) the regularization would be limited to cases where the encroachment is unobjectionable where the land under encroachment is found more suitable for any public purpose, the Government reserved the right to earmark the land for such public purpose. Keeping in view of the above conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.508, the District Level Committee rejected the application of the appellants holding that the subject-land is required for public purpose i.e. for construction of school building. The policy enunciated under G.O.Ms.No.508 is with subject to the conditions enumerated thereunder. When the appellants have not satisfied any of the conditions enumerated thereunder, it is for the Government to reject the regularization. Inasmuch as the appellants will not have unconditional right of regularization, the order passed by the second respondent do not suffer from any manifest illegality to be corrected in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction. In view of the same, we do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. _________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. NOVEMBER 15, 2010 Tsr.