THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.67 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 3, in making eﬀorts to evict the petitioners from their shops without following the procedure established by law, and without considering their request for regularization, as illegal and arbitrary. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the third respondent, wherein it is stated that the land in Sy. No.49/13 of an extent of Ac.58.20 guntas was government land; out of which, in an extent of Ac.1.15 guntas, Sri Prasanna Anjaneya Swamy Temple is in existence; the petitioner had encroached upon government lands which is on the Hyderabad and Vijayawada national highway, and had constructed mulgies; the Government had ﬁled L.G.C. No.9 of 1989 before the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act to evict the encroachers; the said LGC was allowed on 25.01.1993 holding that the subject land was government land; as against the order in L.G.C. No.9 of 1989 dated 25.01.1993, W.P. No.2959 of 1993 was ﬁled by the sixth respondent-temple which was dismissed by this Court on 12.05.1993 conﬁrming the order passed by the Special Court in L.G.C. No.9 of 1989 dated 25.01.1993; the petitioners had no right over the subject land; from out of Ac.1.15 guntas, while a temple has been in existence in Ac.0.38 guntas, the remaining extent of Ac.0.17 guntas was in the illegal occupation of the petitioners; and possession thereof had to be restored to the government. Reference is made to W.A. No.258 of 1993 ﬁled by the sixth respondent-temple against the order in W.P. No.2959 of 1993 dated 12.05.1993, which was disposed of by this Court directing the Commissioner, Endowments to ﬁle an application to the government seeking regularization of the land encroached upon by the temple on payment of reasonable value; the sixth respondent-temple had no right over the subject land which is government land; and it is only to the extent of Ac.0.38 guntas, in which the temple has been in existence, that the Commissioner, Endowments was directed to seek regularization. It is evident from the averments, in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the third respondent, that the petitioners had not chosen to question the proceedings of the Special Court in L.G.C. No.9 of 1989 dated 25.01.1993, and the said order has attained ﬁnality. It is only the sixth respondent-temple which had questioned the order of the Special Court in L.G.C. No.9 of 1989 dated 25.01.1993 by way of W.P. No.2959 of 1993 and, subsequently, by way of W.A. No.258 of 1993. In so far as the writ petitioners are concerned, the findings of the Special Court that the subject land is government land; and the petitioners had no right over the subject land; has attained finality. Sri D.Y.L.N. Charyulu, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners have been in long standing occupation of the subject lands; and they are entitled to seek regularization. On being asked which law enables the petitioners to seek regularization, Learned Counsel would seek time to look up the law. The petitioners, having invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, ought to have placed the relevant statutory provisions or government orders, if any, in force before this Court which enables them to seek regularization. After the matter has been heard at length, I see no reason to adjourn the matter to enable the Learned Counsel to now search for, and produce the government orders, if any, in this regard. The fact, however, remains that the petitioners are in possession of the subject lands, and it is for the government to take necessary steps to evict them therefrom in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act). In the absence of any substantive right accruing in their favour for regularization of the subject lands, illegally occupied by them, I see no reason to grant the relief sought for. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 02.12.2011 Note: C.C. in one week B/o USD/MRKR