THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.25877 of 2011 Dated 15th September, 2011 Between: Bontha Abraham and another …Petitioners And Ongole Municipal Corporation, rep.by the Municipal Commissioner, Prakasam District and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.S.Bhatt Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Counsel for respondent No.2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioners, who claim to be in possession of Government land, which is vested with the respondent-Corporation, filed this writ petition aggrieved by the alleged demolition of pucca structures raised by them by respondent No.1 on 13.09.2010 without following due process of law. Apart from seeking a direction to the respondents to grant house site patta to them, they have also sought for payment of compensation of alleged illegal demolition of pucca house. I have heard Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, representing respondent No.1. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition shows that the petitioners are in occupation of Government land and raised structures without obtaining any permission. The said structures were stated to have been demolished as far back as 13.09.2010. If the petitioners felt aggrieved by such demolition, they are expected to approach the respondents seeking redressal of their grievance. Even though the petitioners have filed a copy of the purported representation addressed to respondent No.2 with a request to grant house site patta, the said representation does not contain any date nor proof of receipt of the said representation by respondent No.2. In my opinion, the petitioners do not have legally enforceable right for a mandamus to direct the respondents to grant house site patta. However, since the petitioners claim that they are in possession of the property for the last 20 years, paying taxes after obtaining electricity connection, it would be appropriate that they make a representation to respondent No.2 within two weeks from today for grant of house site patta. If such representation is received by respondent No.2, he shall consider the same and take a decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation from the petitioners. In the event a representation is made, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the site till the disposal of their representation by respondent No.2. 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.31903 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th September, 2011 VGB