IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.7428 of 2000 Between: Kollam Bapi Raju. … Petitioner And The District Collector (Social Welfare), East Godavari District at Kakinada and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N.Siva Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the vacant site of an extent of 1½ cents abutting House No.1-82 of Srikrishnapatnam village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings against him. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit shows that the petitioner claimed to be in occupation of 1½ cents of land, which, admittedly, belongs to the Government. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of the local MLA, the respondents are seeking to evict him unlawfully without following due process of law. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajanagaram Mandal, respondent No.3 herein, filed a counter- affidavit, wherein he, inter alia, stated that the petitioner and his brothers occupied the site in dispute, which was in occupation of one Smt.Goddu Bharati, W/o.Ramachandra Rao of Srikrishnapatnam village of Rajanagaram Mandal. It is further stated that she belongs to scheduled caste community and has four children; that her husband Ramachandra Rao planted coconut trees in the year 1988 in the site in dispute; that Smt.Goddu Bharati raised a hut and has been residing therein till 1989; that the petitioner and his brothers occupied the said site by promising the said Bharati that they would construct a building in it and hand it over to her later; and that the said Bharati represented to the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, that the house site in her occupation was occupied by the petitioner and requested for taking appropriate action for removal of encroachment and handing over of the site to her. It is further stated that the petitioner and his brother-Ratnam erected a hut, overnight, on 23-3-2000 and tried to show that a non-formal education centre was being run therein for a long time; that on the warning being given by Village Administrative Officer, Srikrishnapatnam village, they have handed over the site to the said Bharati; and that the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, vide proceedings dated 4-4-2000, accepted the proposal sent by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajanagaram, and issued a house site patta in favour of Smt.Goddu Bharati. From the respective pleadings referred to above, it is evident that the petitioner was admittedly in unauthorized occupation of the Government land. It is not the case of the petitioner that he applied for grant of house site patta in respect of the said land. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that even if the petitioner is found to be an encroacher, he is liable to be evicted by the respondents only after following due process of law; and that the entire action is malafide, I have not felt persuaded to accept either of the two contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the counter- affidavit it is categorically stated that the petitioner and his brother, who occupied the land have surrendered possession to Smt.Goddu Bharati on the warning administered by the local Village Administrative Officer. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner controverting the above mentioned averments. Therefore, I am not able to countenance the plea of the petitioner that the respondents have forcibly evicted the petitioner from the site in dispute. As regards the plea of malafides, as held by the Supreme Court in E.P.Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu – AIR 1974 SC 555 – the burden lies heavily on the person who raised the allegation of malafides. The petitioner failed to raise proper pleadings of malafides and implead either the local MLA or any of the officers in their personal capacity. Therefore, the vague and unsubstantiated allegations of malafides cannot be accepted. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary. A person who occupied the Government land in violation of law is not entitled to invoke such a jurisdiction on the purported ground of the respondent not following due process of law. At any rate, as the petitioner was stated to have already handed over the site in dispute to Smt.Goddu Bharati and a patta was granted to her by the Sub- Collector, Rajahmundry, which allegations have remained unrebutted, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:13-2-2009 MNR