IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the24th day of March, 2011. PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No. 13704 of 2003 Between: Sarvodaya Trust Grama Seva Kendram, Sivarampally, Rajendernaar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrit. ..Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh And others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No. 13704 of 2003 Order: The petitioner, Sarvodaya Trust Grama Seva Kendram filed this writ petition to declare the action of the first and second respondents in regularizing the encroachment of the sixth respondent in Sy.No. 40 of Katedan Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.508 dated:20.10.1995 and consequently to remove the constructions made there in. 2. According to the petitioner it is the owner of certain land in Sy.No. 38 of Katedan village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The sixth respondent, who occupied a piece of land in Sy.No. 40 in between the road and the land of the petitioner is making obstruction for its ingress and egress, by raising construction. On enquiry it came to know that the six respondent filed W.P.No. 17274 of 2002 and obtained an order restraining respondents No.4 and 5 from demolishing the structures raised by him, without following due process of law. It is further submitted by the petitioner that for regularisation of the lands as per G.O.Ms.No.508 dated:20.10.1995 there shall be residential structures existing in the land; whereas in the case of the sixth respondent as no such structures are existing, he is not entitled for regularisation. Hence the writ petition was filed for removal of the structures raised by the sixth respondent. 3. The fourth respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division filed his counter stating that the sixth respondent herein earlier filed W.P.No. 5140 of 1998 praying for a direction to the respondent to consider and dispose of his application for regularisation of 0.03 guntas of land occupied by him in Sy. No. 40 of Katedan Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which was disposed of 26-2-1998. Pursuant to the said directions, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Mandal called for a report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar. Subsequently, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendernagar submitted his report stating that the land sought for regularisation comprised of a shed and open site located adjacent to NH-7, which is admittedly effected by 125’ road, as no person was residing in the shed, the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.508 are not applicable to the case of the sixth respondent. In turn the Revenue Divisional Officer in his letter No.D/1453/98 dated:5-11-1998 called upon the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the aspect of allotment of land to the petitioner on market value and that the MRO may send proposals for allotment of the land to the sixth respondent. Later, proposals for regularization of 80 square yards of land were processed and submitted to the Committee headed by the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner Land Administration for regularization and the Committee approved the proposal for regularization of the said 80 square yards in favour of the sixth respondent on payment of market value. Accordingly the sixth respondent paid Rs.48,000-00 towards market value. Consequently the government have executed the Regularisation Deed on 23-05-2002 in favour of the sixth respondent. According to the Regularisation Deed the dimensions of the said site are 24 ‘ x 30’. Taking advantage of the regularization, when the sixth respondent tried to encroach upon the adjoining government land, more than the 80 square yards, he was directed to limit the constructions for the area regularized only. Then the sixth respondent again approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 18587 of 2004, which was disposed of on 16.11.2004 directing the official respondents therein to demarcate the property regularised and confine the constructions to the extent of regularization only and if on demarcation, it is found that the sixth respondent encroached into the adjacent government land the official respondents can proceed in the matter after giving notice to the sixth respondent for making objections if any. The constructions made by the sixth respondent were got measured and the constructions were found to be in an extent of 80’ x 16’ which comes to an area of 142.2 square yards, as against the regularized area of 80 square yards. Therefore, notice under section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act was issued to the sixth respondent and on receipt of reply from the sixth respondent further action would be initiated. 4. The sixth respondent filed his counter stating that he obtained an order in W.P.No.17274 of 2002 on 11.09-2002 against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 therein not to demolish the structures existing on the said property without following due process of law. As the structures raised by him are in accordance with Rules and Regulations, no action was initiated by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, pursuant to the said order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the land which was regularized in favour of the sixth respondent falls within road margin and as such it cannot be regularized in terms of G.O.Ms. No.508; whereas the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent submits that he filed W.P.No. 16163 of 2003 before this Court which was disposed of on 3.8.2009 directing the respondents therein not to take steps for demolition of any part of the building of the petitioner bearing No.6-2-127/A, Katedan Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District till appropriate orders are passed on the application of the petitioner dated:30-04-2008 and the respondent-Corporation shall communicate the same to the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent contends that in the present writ petition, when the application filed by the sixth respondent is pending, no orders can be issued for cancellation of the regularization made in favour of the sixth respondent. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that necessary steps would be taken pursuant to the notice issued to the sixth respondent under section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act. 7. From the above pleadings, as well as submissions made above disclose the following facts: The sixth respondent encroached into the government land within the road margin, filed a representation before the authorities to regularize the said encroachment; filed W.P.No. 5140 of 1998, which was disposed of on 26-2-1998 “directing the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar to consider the application expeditiously and dispose of the same within three months and till such disposal status quo to be maintained.” Pursuant to the said directions, the respondent therein found that the encroachment cannot be regularized in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 508 dated:20-10-1995. Therefore, it was decided to dispose of the land on market value and accordingly proposals were called for from the Mandal Revenue Officer; on receipt of the proposals from the Mandal Revenue Officer, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella (the third respondent herein) forwarded the same to the Committee headed by the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner for Land Administration, who approved the proposals for regularization of 80 square yards of land on payment of its market value; to that effect regularization deed was also executed on 23-5- 2002 and under the garb of regularization of 80 square yards, as he was not required to obtain permission from the Municipal authorities, as the plot was less than 100 yards, he started construction in deviation of the By-laws by encroaching upon the adjacent government land and made construction over an area of 80’ x 16’ = 142.2 square yards. For such an encroachment a notice under section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act was issued. Meanwhile, the sixth respondent again filed W.P.No. 18587 of 2004, which was disposed of on 16-11-2004 directing the official respondents to demarcate the property regularized and confine construction to that extent only. In view of the said direction, it is clear that the sixth respondent is not entitled for regularization of the remaining land, which is in his occupation. Added to the same, the sixth respondent filed – W.P 16163 of 2003, which was disposed by this court on 3-8-2003 in the following terms: “As much as it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration, I direct the respondents-Corporation not to take any steps for demolition of any part of the building of the petitioner bearing No. 6-2-127/A, situated at Katedan village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, till appropriate orders are passed on the application of the petitioner dted:30-4-2008 and the office of the respondent- Corporation shall communicate the same to the petitioner. It is also made clear that if the application of the petitioner is rejected, it is open to the respondents-Corporation to remove the structures which were constructed by the petitioner contrary to the Bye-Laws and Rules made there under.” 8.0 Thus, the above facts clearly disclose that the sixth respondent by filing series of writ petitions wants not only to encroach the government property, but also expand the same by making constructions over the land in the road margin, which, under any circumstances, cannot be permitted. 9. This court while disposing of W.P.No. 18587 of 2004 directed the official respondents therein to demarcate the property regularized and confine the construction to the extent regularized only and if on demarcation, it is found that the sixth respondent encroached into the adjacent government land, the official respondents can proceed in the matter after giving notice to the sixth respondent for making objections, if any. In view of the same the sixth respondent cannot lay any claim over the land, which was not regularized in his favour. Therefore, the Mandal Revenue Officer is under an obligation to confine the construction of the sixth respondent over an extent of 80 square yards only and to take action on the notice issued under section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, for removal of the unauthorized construction so made, contrary to the directions referred to above. 10. In the light of the above, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar is directed to pass final orders on the notice issued under section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, after receiving the explanation from the sixth respondent. The action so initiated by him thereon shall be submitted to this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. March 24, 2011. *BVS