THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31235 of 2010 Date: 30.3.2011 Between: D.Krishna Kumar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rural Development Department and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri L.V.S. Nagaraju Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: A.G.P.for Panchayat Raj Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31235 of 2010 Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from premises bearing No. 4-173 situated at Gopullapuram Gram Panchayat, Veepangandla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, claiming to be a landless poor person averred that he is in possession of a vacant site belonging to Gopullapuram Gram Panchayat and allegedly raised a thatched house bearing No.4-173. The petitioner placed reliance on Resolution dated 4.2.2005 of the Gram Panchayat granting permission for construction of a house and also followed by permission and approval of the plan on 4.2.2005. He averred that since the year 1998, he is staying in that house with his family by paying house tax to respondent No.4 from 2001 to 2006. The petitioner alleged that on 6.12.2010, respondent No.4 along with some revenue officials came to the said premises and tried to evict him and that he resisted the said attempt and filed the present writ petition. In support of his plea that he is residing in the said property bearing H. No. 4-173, the petitioner filed a Certificate dated 8.11.2004 of respondent No.4 and also the purported sanctioned plan. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 4. In the counter of respondent No.2, the plea of the petitioner that he is a landless poor person is denied. He has stated that the petitioner is having Acs.5.22 guntas in Dhagadapally Village of Veepanagandla Mandal. Respondent No.2 also denied granting of any house site patta to the petitioner along with 150 others. He has also denied the issuance of Certificate dated 8.11.2004 by respondent No.4 and the resolution dated 4.2.2005 resolving to grant permission for construction of a house. Respondent No.2 termed all the documents filed by the petitioner as manipulated and denied existence of any house. He averred that the land in question is a poramboke land located in Survey No. 177 adjoining Grama Kantam land and that the petitioner is not in possession of the same and therefore the question of issuance of any prior notice for his eviction does not arise. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, similar averments have been made. It is pleaded that Survey No.177 is a Government land, that the Government has set up a Grain Purchasing Centre in the said land, that on the complaint made by the villagers, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Wanaparthy visited the site along with Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer and found that no construction of any kind is in existence over the land in dispute and the petitioner was warned by the Revenue Divisional Officer against raising any construction. It is further stated that the petitioner is residing at House No.4-24. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, while denying that he owned Acs.5.22 guntas of land, he has however averred that out of the said land, an extent of Acs.4.00 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of Bhima II Lift Irrigation Canal and that compensation also was received by him. He further stated that an extent of Acs.1.22 guntas was given to his brother and sister and compensation amount was received by him and that by virtue of the land acquisition proceedings, he has become a landless poor person. At the outset, it is required to be observed that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a false plea that he is a landless poor person. Until respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have come out with the plea that the petitioner is the owner of Acs.5.22 guntas, he has suppressed the fact that he owned the said property. Even though he has pleaded in his reply affidavit that out of the total extent of Acs.5.22 guntas, 4.00 acres was acquired and compensation was paid, no proof in respect thereof, has been filed. He failed to disclose the quantum of compensation he has received. The petitioner also did not produce any material to substantiate his plea that the remaining extent of Acs. 1.22 guntas was given away to his brother and sister in lieu of compensation payable to them for the acquisition of Acs.4.00 of land. Even assuming that the averments made in the reply affidavit are correct, the petitioner having received compensation cannot claim that he is left without any land and therefore he is a landless poor person. The main purpose of compensation is to enable a person whose land is acquired to procure alternative land. Having received the compensation, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that he is a landless poor person. Even though the petitioner has filed certain documents to show that he is in possession of the land in question, the fact remains that the land belongs to the Government. Further, as the authenticity of these documents has been disputed by respondents 2 and 4, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact. A person who has encroached into the Government land despite having his own property, cannot invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner seeks to assert his right in common law, he can only approach the common law Courts for appropriate relief. Having regard to the conduct of the petitioner in suppressing the material facts and the further fact that on his own showing he is in unauthorized occupation of the Government land, I decline to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel, W.P.M.P. No.39735 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 30th March, 2011 pnb