IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2516 OF 2003 Dt.22.12.2009 Between: B. Ramachandra Reddy … Petitioner And District Collector, Cuddapah and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.2516 OF 2003 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to demolish a structure in Ward No.13, bearing D.No.338 J-12-A, Vempalli Gram Panchayat, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents not to demolish the structure without following due process of law. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, there is no representation. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the land admeasuring 10 mts. x 3 mts. in Ward No.13, bearing the door number referred to above. According to the petitioner, initially his father and later on himself had been in possession of this property for the last thirty years. A hut, which was in existence till the year 1993, was stated to have been removed and a pucca building, in its place, was allegedly constructed by the petitioner with the permission granted by the Gram Panchayat on 21.9.1993. The petitioner also claims that tax is being paid in respect of the said building. In connection with road widening, a part of the above mentioned building was stated to have been demolished and, according to the petitioner, as a result of the same, the rest of the building also collapsed. The petitioner, however, claimed that he erected a temporary shed and is running a shop to deal with agricultural implements and paints. The petitioner also averred that as a portion of the land in his occupation, which was required for the purpose of road widening, was already taken over and utilized for the said purpose, there is no justification for the respondents to evict the petitioner from the balance part of the property. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is stated that the lands admeasuring Ac.1.12 cents and Ac.0.62 cents in S.Nos.374/2 and 375/2 belong to and vested in Zilla Parishad, Kadapa, as per Vempalli village accounts, and that the lands are situated at Kadapa – Pulivendula Main Road and that the villagers of Vempalli have encroached margin of the said road and erected petty shops and bunks for carrying on businesses. It is further stated that as the said land is required for widening of road and construction of government offices, such as, telecom exchange etc., the Gram Panchayat, under the orders of the Zilla Parishad, initiated action for removal of the encroachments. It is further stated that the Zilla Parishad, which is the owner of the property, has not granted any permission to the petitioner to occupy any part of the land and carry on business thereon. It is stated that the petitioner is not the owner of the land and the same is required for road widening and also for establishment of offices. Though the petitioner claims that the property is in possession of their family for the last thirty years, no document has been filed in support thereof. The petitioner has merely filed a copy of the permission granted by the Executive Officer, Vempalli Gram Panchayat, for construction of a building. This document does not establish the petitioner’s ownership over the land. Even assuming that the petitioner is in possession of the property belonging to the Zilla Parishad, he has no vested right to continue to hold the said property, more so, when the same was required for public purposes, such as road widening and construction of offices for public convenience and in public interest. Even according to the petitioner, part of the land, which was required for road widening, was already taken over by the respondents and road has been laid. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, survives only to the extent of the balance part of the land over which he claimed to have raised hut and has been carrying on the business therein. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has no right to continue in the premises in the absence of lawful title vested in him. The respondents are, therefore, entitled to recover possession of the property from the petitioner. However, before recovering possession, the respondents are bound to follow the due procedure prescribed by law. In view of the assertion of the petitioner that as of now he is in occupation of a part of the public property, the respondents are directed not to evict the petitioner without following the due process of law, such as, initiation of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or any other relevant laws under which the respondents can recover possession. Before parting with this case, I find it appropriate to mention that large scale instances of unauthorized occupation of government lands are coming to light, in a spate of cases coming before this Court. It is time for respondent Nos.1 and 4 to bestow their attention and initiate appropriate action for recovery of the lands, from the possession of the unauthorized persons, by taking recourse to lawful procedure. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.3303 of 2003, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22.12.2009 bnr