THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.16790 of 2006 Dated: 08-11-2006 Between: R. Srinivasa Rao and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.16790 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioners, who are eighty-three in number, are allegedly in occupation of small extents of land in survey Nos. 168/4 to 6 in total admeasuring Acs.2.66 cents (hereinafter called, the subject land) situated at Chinamushidivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. They allege that they occupied the subject land and raised thatch roofed huts/sheds and living there. In 2005, they filed W.P.No.15933 of 2005 seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, namely, the District Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer(MRO), fourth respondent herein, to consider their claim for assignment of the subject land as house site pattas. By order dated 21-07-2005, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the District Collector to conduct enquiry and assign the subject land to the petitioners, if they are eligible, in accordance with law. The petitioners then filed a contempt case, being C.C.No.650 of 2006, alleging that even before the District Collector conducted enquiry, the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam and the Commissioner of Police tried to demolish their huts/sheds. At that stage it is brought to the notice that MRO passed orders in proceedings RC.No.425/2005/A dated 06-11-2005 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for assignment of house site pattas. Therefore, this Court dismissed the contempt case observing that the petitioners may challenge the proceedings of MRO dated 06-11-2005 separately. On the strength of such observation, they filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing their huts/sheds as illegal and arbitrary, and for a further direction not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment in respect of the subject land. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by MRO. It is not necessary to refer to the entire counter. Suffice to notice that on 06-11-2005, MRO rejected the request of the petitioners for assignment of the subject land. The allegation that there is threat of demolition is denied. It is further stated that as directed by the District Collector, MRO and Panchayat Secretary conducted enquiry regarding the eligibility of the petitioners and found that the petitioners are not permanent residents of said Village but belong to Srikakulam and neighbouring Districts and are in the habit of encroaching upon the prime land. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that though the enquiry was conducted by MRO and Panchayat Secretary, the same is not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.15933 of 2005 dated 21-07-2005. The learned counsel also disputes the counter averments regarding possession. This writ petition is filed alleging that the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam and the Commissioner of Police are trying to demolish the huts/sheds of the petitioners. The same is denied by MRO as well as the City Planner, who filed separate a counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent. Further the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) fairly submits that if any of the petitioners are in possession of the subject land, appropriate action would be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the writ petition. Now that a copy of the order is already issued rejecting the claim of the petitioners, they have remedy of filing an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer or the Joint Collector to prove their eligibility for assignment. Needles to observe that if any of the petitioners are in possession of the land, respondents 3 and 4 to follow due process of law before evicting them. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ V.V.S.RAO, J 08th November, 2006 ghn