THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19168 of 2009 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption ‘interlocutory’, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up and being disposed of by this order. In the writ petition, petitioners seek a mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in threatening to demolish their shops bearing D.Nos.20/7-A, 20/6, 20-10-1, 20-12-1, 20/7-B, 20/10, 20-7-B situated at Tadipatri Bus Stand Road, Anantapur, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioners that they are in possession of a small piece of land covered by structures bearing D.Nos.20/7-A, 20/6, 20-10-1, 20-12-1, 20/7-B, 20/10, 20-7-B situated at Tadipatri Bus Stand Road, Anantapur, from the last 50 years without any interruption and their properties were assessed to tax and the municipal authorities are collecting taxes. It is also the case of the petitioners that questioning interference caused by the fifth respondent, they filed O.S.Nos.25, 118 and 36 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur and obtained injunction orders. It is their grievance that in spite of such injunction orders, at the instance of the fifth respondent, respondents 1 to 4 are trying to take steps for demolition of their shops without following due process of law. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the third respondent - Tahsildar, Anantapur Mandal, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the land admeasuring Acs.4.74 cents covered by Survey No.239 is classified as Government poramboke and denoted as ROBINSON SQUARE. It is further stated that out of Acs.4.74 cents of land, in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents, in front of the temple on western side, there are encroachments by way of constructions and they are being used for Timber Depot, Bunk, Guru Lakshmi Transport, Lorry Association Office, Siva Balaji Transport, Sri Prasanna Lakshmi Hotel, Sheds and Banks, and for parking of lorries. It is further stated that in view of publication of an item in a daily newspaper of Saakshi, enquiries were conducted with regard to alleged encroachments but so far, no action has been taken under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that the above said site is valuable and located in very busy area of Tadipatri Bus Stand junction in Anantapur Town. It is also stated that by virtue of the said encroachment, there is nuisance to the public and also traffic congestion. The fifth respondent, who claims to have founder trustee of the temple, also filed counter-affidavit. It is stated by her that the land in question was donated by her ancestors to the temple and is encroached by the petitioners obstructing the activities of the temple. According to the petitioners, they have no title over the property, they raised structures and they are simply in possession. From the averments mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it appears that when there was an item published in Saakshi daily newspaper, enquiries were conducted and even before initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Act, apprehending demolition, the petitioners filed this writ petition and obtained interim orders. As much as the alleged structures are illegally raised and such encroachment is admitted by the respondents, if such encroachments are to be removed, official respondents should follow the procedure under the Act by giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned. As much as no proceedings are initiated yet under the Act, there is no cause for the petitioners to approach this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners as otherwise than due process of law. It is made clear that if the encroachments are making traffic congestion and obstructing the activities of the temple, it is open for the respondents to take steps for eviction of the petitioners from the shops in question by following due procedure. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd JUNE, 2011. kvni