HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9251 of 2004 and 7589 of 2006 Date : 24.08.2011 Between : K. Malliah & others. …..Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. by District Collector, Hyderabad & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.9251 of 2004 and 7589 of 2006 COMMON ORDER : As the petitioners in both these writ petitions are same and relieves sought for are also inter-connected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The writ petition in W.P.No.7589 of 2006 is filed with the prayer, which reads as under : “to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ order or direction directing Respondents No.1 to 3 to evict members of Respondent No.4 Association and others who were permitted by the Respondent No.3 to erect huts and structures illegally raised in the land of the petitioners admeasuring 2 acres in Town Survey No.174F-47, old S.No.48 and 49 of Madannapet village, near Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad.” The writ petition in W.P.No.9251 of 2004 is filed with the prayer, which reads as under : “to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents not to erect electricity poles, laying of electricity wires and not to permit the hut dwellers from encroaching in the land of 2 acres belonging to the petitioners in S.Nos.48 and 49 and Town Survey No.174-F-47, Madannapet Village near Old Santosh Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.” For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as stated in W.P.No.7589 of 2006. 3. The petitioners herein claim that they are legal heirs of one Late Karre Danaiah and claim title and possession to an extent of 2 acres of land covered by Town Survey No.174/F-47 in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Madannapet village in Hyderabad District. It is their case that Late Karre Danaiah was in service of the Jagir Administration Department and in view of his services, he was given two acres of land. It is stated that after the demise of Late Danaiah, the petitioners, who are his sons, succeeded to the property, but after the abolition of Jagirs, the name of successor of Jagir by name Mr. Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin Khan was recorded as pattadar. It is their case that though they are the owners and possessors of the land, one Mr.Venkateswarlu, claiming ownership and possession, has filed a declaration under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, declaring an extent of 15 acres of land covered by Sy.Nos.47, 48 and 49, and on such declaration, the aforesaid land including the land of the petitioners admeasuring 2 acres, is declared as surplus land. It is stated that when the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer came to the site and showed the said land to Lambadas to occupy the same, they resisted, but inspite of their resistance, on the instructions of the District Collector and with the assistance of Police, the Mandal Revenue Officer has allowed the third party Tribals to erect huts in the said land. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioners that said Venkateswarlu has no authority to file a declaration with regard to the aforesaid land, and as such, they questioned the action of respondents in taking steps for eviction pursuant to the orders passed on the declaration filed by said Venkateswarlu, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.22025 of 1997. It is stated that the said writ petition was allowed and even the land grabbing case filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in LGC.No.47 of 2001, was also dismissed. It is submitted that the Government has also issued orders in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, annulling the orders of the Special Officer and competent authority, to the extent of land held by the petitioners, inspite of the same, the 3rd respondent has allowed the third party encroachers to encroach upon the property of petitioners. 5. Precisely, on the ground that pursuant to the orders of Special Officer and competent authority declaring the aforesaid land of the petitioners to an extent of 2 acres is also an excess land and based on the same, the 3rd respondent has allowed the members of the 4th respondent-Association to encroach upon the land of the petitioners, the petitioners seek the relief by way of directions against respondents 1 to 3 to evict the members of the 4th respondent-Association from the land admeasuring 2 acres in Town Survey No.174/F-47, in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Madannapet village. 6. The Tahsildar, Saidabad Mandal has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. In the counter, respondents have denied the allegation of petitioners that the encroachments were made by the members of the 4th respondent-Association in the land of the petitioners admeasuring 2 acres in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Madannapet village, only at the instance of respondents 1 to 3. While disputing the title and possession of petitioners, counter refers to the declaration filed by Sri. Venkateswarlu before the Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, declaring purchase of an extent of Ac.15.24 gts. of land by document No.1010568, dated 22.02.1968 from its original owner, Khaja Moinuddin Khan. Reference is also made to the orders passed by the competent authority declaring an extent of 62,130.02 sq. metres of land. While referring to the further steps taken under Sections 10(3) and 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, it is stated that they have noticed some huts and structures raised by Lambadas in the aforesaid land when they initiated steps for taking possession of the land. Further, it is categorically stated that the 3rd respondent has not allowed any hut dweller to put his or her hut in the land in question. Referring to the several other writ petitions filed by the petitioners, it is stated that similar relief was also sought for earlier, which was not granted by this Court, and inspite of the same, the petitioners are repeatedly filing writ petitions before this Court. 7. In W.P.No.9251 of 2004, while claiming similar relief, the petitioners sought directions against the authorities of the A.P. Power Distribution Company Limited and their officers not to erect service lines in the aforesaid land of the petitioners to an extent of 2 acres. 8. Petitioners have also filed reply affidavit in W.P.No.7589 of 2006. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the Mandal Revenue Officer is aware of the orders passed by this Court, wherein, the declarations filed by Sri Venkateswarlu are found invalid and a reference is also made to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.Memo No.1763/40-IV/06-3, dated 23.05.2006, by which, the Government has cancelled the proceedings of the Special Officer, relating to declaration filed by Sri Venkateswarlu. In the counter, by reiterating the stand that inspite of the resistance of the petitioners, at the instance of the then Mandal Revenue Officer, trees in the land of the petitioners were cut and he has permitted the Lambada tribals to occupy part of the land, taking assistance of the Police. 9. In these writ petitions, it is contended by Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioners that though the petitioners are the actual owners and possessors of the land admeasuring 2 acres situated in Town Sy.No.174/F-47 in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Madannapet village, they are sought to be deprived of the aforesaid land illegally. It is submitted that Sri Venkateswarlu was not having any interest over the land in question, but inspite of the same, based on the declaration filed by him, petitioners’ land was also included in the land declared by him under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and based on the final orders passed by the Special Officer and competent authority, the 3rd respondent has allowed encroachments by the third party Lambada tribals. It is submitted that only at the instance of the 3rd respondent, encroachments have taken place on the premise that the land in question is surplus land, as such, petitioners are entitled for directions to respondents 1 to 3 for eviction of the members of the 4th respondent-Association from the land of petitioners admeasuring 2 acres. It is further submitted that the orders declaring excess land are already annulled by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, inspite of the same, no steps are being taken to restore land to the petitioners. 10. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that as much as the Mandal Revenue Officer has not allowed occupation of any land of petitioners by third parties, petitioners are not entitled for any directions to respondents 1 to 3, to evict the members of the 4th respondent-Association. It is submitted that if the petitioners claim that the land in question is private patta land and if there are any encroachments, it is for them to move the competent Court for eviction of encroachers, but on the allegation that the 3rd respondent has allowed unauthorized occupations, without any material in support of such allegation, petitioners cannot seek the relief as prayed for. It is submitted that as the occupants of the houses have requested, electricity poles have been erected, and in that view of the matter, petitioners are not entitled for any relief in W.P.No.9251 of 2004. 11. At the outset, it is to be noticed that in these writ petitions, primarily, the directions are sought by the petitioners claiming that they are owners and possessors of land admeasuring 2 acres covered by T.S.No.174/F-47 in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 of Madannapet village, on the ground that the members of the 4th respondent- Association were permitted by the 3rd respondent to encroach upon the said land. The 4th respondent is a welfare Association. It is to be noticed that no individual, who is claimed to have been in possession of the land in question, is made party respondent to this writ petition. When it is the case of petitioners that individual members have occupied the land in question, by making a welfare Association as party, the petitioners cannot seek any relief against respondents 1 to 3 to evict the members of the 4th respondent-Welfare Association. Though several proceedings issued by various authorities and orders passed by this Court are referred to, it is not necessary to mention about all those orders in detail for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. Directions are sought for in the present writ petitions only on the premise that the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer permitted the members of the 4th respondent-Association to encroach upon the land of petitioners, but in the counter filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, as there is a categorical denial of the allegation of petitioners that he has permitted any such encroachments in the land of petitioners, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue any directions as sought for in the writ petitions. 12. Though strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel for petitioners on the letter, dated 02.09.1997, issued in Lr.No.A/4504/97, stating that at the instance of the 3rd respondent, encroachments have taken place, but, from a perusal of the said letter it is clear that it is addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Station House Officer of P.S.Santhosh Nagar, stating that the land in question was declared as surplus land. While referring to the orders of the Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, dated 29.02.1988, issued in Proceedings No.J/4758/76, the letter states that on 01.09.1997, the petitioners went to the site and tried to remove the huts of Scheduled Tribes. In the said context, the Station House Officer was addressed, stating that the aforesaid Tribes were in longstanding possession of the land, as such, they are to be given protection against the petitioners, who are creating trouble to them. From the contents of the letter itself, no inference can be drawn to accept the plea of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent has allowed the members of the 4th respondent- Association to enter the land. In fact, it speaks that the members of the 4th respondent-Association were already in possession of the said land. In that view of the matter, and in view of the specific denial by the 3rd respondent, denying the allegation of petitioners that he permitted the members of the 4th respondent-Association to encroach the land in question, and further, in the absence of any other material to show that the members of the 4th respondent-Association were inducted into possession by any of respondents 1 to 3, no direction, as prayed for in these writ petitions, can be granted. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th August 2011 ajr