IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.5921 of 2002 Dated 7th September 2009 Between: Sala Sitamma, W/o. Narasimhamurthy, aged 35 years R/o Ullamparru Village, Palkol Mandal, West Godavari District and others. ...Petitioners AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. and others ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.5921 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioners, who are 21 in number, seek a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in demolishing huts raised by them in land comprised in R.S.No.141/3 of Ullamparru Village, Palkol Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and for consequential direction. It is the case of petitioners that all of them belong to disadvantaged classes. They were granted house site pattas admeasuring 67 Sq.Yds each in land comprised in R.S.No.147/3 of the village. It is alleged that they raised huts and obtained ration cards and living there. On 26.03.2002, subordinate officials of respondents demolished the huts. Second respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia stating as follows. …It is submitted that the petitioners were granted house site pattas during the year 1999. As under enquiry the petitioners have violated the patta condition No.2 and had not constructed houses in the stipulated time and are residing somewhere else. As per the instructions of the Revenue Divisional officer, Narsapur, the M.R.O., Palacole enquired and noticed that the petitioners have not constructed houses in their respective plots and residing elsewhere. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Palacole vide proceedings Dt.25-1- 2002 cancelled the pattas issued to 24 beneficiaries who have not constructed houses in the stipulated time leaving the plots vacant and initiated proposals for rehabilitation to the houseless poor. After knowing the cancellation of the pattas, the petitioners raised temporary huts in the vacant plots. Therefore, the petitioners are deemed as encroachers as under law, as they have no right at all on the site. The allegations made in the para are not correct. It is also alleged in the counter that allotment of house site pattas to petitioners was irregular that they were not in physical possession by erecting houses even after lapse of three years, and that after cancellation of pattas, petitioners encroached and erected houses. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (AA). Petitioners approached the Court alleging that their houses were demolished by staff of respondents on 26.03.2002. They have not disputed by filing a reply affidavit that their house site pattas were cancelled for violation of condition 2 of assignment, which stipulates that allottee, must raise construction. Though houses were demolished as admitted by Mandal Revenue Officer, Palkol, petitioners again encroached the land and raised huts. This was the position on 31.07.2000 when counter affidavit 2 was sworn to by Mandal Revenue Officer, Palkol. The counter is silent as to whether land, which was allegedly taken possession from petitioners pursuant to cancellation proceedings dated 25.01.2001, was allotted to any other beneficiaries. In this background, it is only appropriate that Mandal Revenue Officer, Palkol should again consider the case of petitioners for regularization of their occupation or for issue of fresh pattas because there is no denial in counter that petitioners are also landless and homeless poor persons belonging to disadvantaged classes like scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as above, directing second respondent to consider regularization / issue of fresh pattas to petitioners, provided if they satisfy terms and conditions of assignment policy. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 07, 2009 Bvv