IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12863 of 2002 Between: 1 B.Prasad Rao S/o Late Nasaraiah R/o Ward No.5, Near Vaddalapudi Center, Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 2 Godavarthi Aharouna S/o Late Ratnam R/o Ward No.5, Near Vaddalapudi Center, Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 3 Ayamalla Ketrenamma W/o Sreenivasa Rao C/o Velpula Koteswara Rao R/o Ward No.5, D.No.5/561 Near Vaddalapudi Center, Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 4 Chukka Muniyya S/o Late Laxmayya R/o Behind C.K.Jr College, Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 5 Nuthakki Raghuramaiah S/o Late Subbayya R/o Madigapalle, Nuthakki Village, Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 6 Yedluri Butchiyya S/o Late Ramaiah R/o Old Mangalagiri Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 7 Dontha Venkateswarlu S/o Late Polayya R/o Nuthakki Village, (Near Bus Stop) Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 8 Iskupalli Prakas Rao S/o Late Issac R/o Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 9 Thummapudi Ramaiah S/o Late Govinda Rao R/o Malapalli, Nuthakki Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 10 Thummapudi Bhimayya S/o Late Govinda Rao R/o Malapalli, Nuthakki Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 11 Iskupalli Sarabandi S/o Late Issac R/o Old Mangalagiri, Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District. 12 Talla Subba Rao S/o Late Nageswara Rao R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, (Via.,) Muthakki, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. 13 Talla Adinarayana S/o Late Nageswara Rao R/o Ramachandrapuram Village, (Via.,) Muthakki, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue (Assingment-I) Dept, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Land Revenue Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 3 The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur. 4 Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur. 5 Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by calling for the records relataing to the connected with Proceedings Ref.No.B2/625/91, dt: 30.3.2002 and quash the same holding it absouletly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutionl adn consequently direct the respondents to either by eviciting the encroachers or in the alternate to pay compensation as per the market value in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1037 Revenue (Assignemt-I) Department, dt: 23.12.1993 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ..... REGISTRAR THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.12863 2002 ORAL ORDER The petitioners herein were assigned different extents of land situated in Sy.No.134 of Mangalagiri Town & Mandal, Guntur District which is a government waste land. Accordingly “D-Form” pattas were granted in favour of the petitioners on 15-09-1978 and they were also put in possession. However during the year 1983 some third parties attempted to encroach upon the land assigned to the petitioners. In the circumstances the petitioners filed O.S.No.370 of 1988 ( Old OS.No.150 of 1983) on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Guntur. While recording a finding that the petitioners herein were in possession and enjoyment of the land in question on the date of filing of the suit, the Civil Court disposed of the said suit observing that it is for the Government or Municipality to take proper steps to find out whether the huts were raised by the encroachers unauthorizedly and if so to grant pattas to them or to evict them. It was also observed by the Court that inasmuch as the encroachers were not parties to the suit the Court was not concerned to evict them. It is alleged by the petitioners that in spite of the said judgment of the Civil Court the respondents herein failed to take any steps for removal of the unauthorized encroachments made by the third parties and the possession was not restored to the petitioners. However, on the representations made by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent-the District Collector, Guntur after conducting a detailed enquiry submitted a report dated.03.01.2002 accepting the assignment in favour of the petitioners in the year 1978. However it was mentioned that as the encroachers were below poverty line and eligible for regularization of encroachments and as there was every likelihood of breach of public peace and tranquility causing law and order problem the encroachers could not be evicted as per the Court directions. So far as the petitioners herein who are the original assignees are concerned it was stated that they may be paid ex gratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated.23-12-1993 as they were deprived of their lands on account of encroachments. Pursuant thereto the impugned order dated.30-03-2002 came to be passed by the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P holding as under:- “The attention of the Collector, Guntur is invited the references cited and he is informed as follows. To cancel the original assignment made to the persons whose assigned lands are partly encroached. To issue revised assignment orders to the balance extent in respect of the original assignees if they are in actual enjoyment on ground. To issue house site pattas to all eligible encroachers who were raised structures in the encroached land and who are living there. He must take action to evict the ineligible encroached and to resume the land in their occupation, to the Government.” The said order is challenged in this writ petition contending inter alia that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to ignore the report of the 3rd respondent-District Collector recommending payment of ex gratia equivalent to the market value of the land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated.23-12-1993. It is also contended that the impugned order directing cancellation of assignments granted in favour of the petitioners is unwarranted and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and material on record. As could be seen from the report submitted by the 3rd respondent dated.03-01-2002 the fact that the petitioners herein were granted assignments long back in the year 1978 and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same till 1983 is not in dispute. Admittedly the land was occupied by the 3rd parties unauthorizedly and thus the petitioners were deprived of the lands assigned to them. In the circumstances after conducting a necessary enquiry the 3rd respondent submitted a detailed report dated.03-01-2002 recommending payment of ex gratia amount equivalent to the market value as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated.23.12.1993 to the petitioners. Strangely the 2nd respondent without considering any of the factual aspects observed by the 3rd respondent and the recommendations made in his report passed a cryptic order directing cancellation of the assignments in favour of the petitioners herein and grant fresh assignments if they were in actual enjoyment on the ground. The said order on the face of it runs contrary to the factual findings recorded by the Civil Court in O.S.No.370 of 1988 as well as the recommendations .of the 3rd respondent. At any rate, in the absence of any reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at, the impugned order is unsustainable being violative of the principles of natural justice and thus liable to be set aside on that ground also. Accordingly the impugned order is hereby set aside and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the entire material afresh after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the light of the report of the 3rd respondent-District Collector, Guntur dated.03-01-2002 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J 1st December,2008 Note: Issue CC in one week. (B/O) *TSNR