THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.1140 of 2003 Date of Order: 03-03-2011 Between: 1. Puvvala Narayana Rao and others. ..Petitioner and 1.The District Collector & ITDA Chairman, Paderu, Visakhapatnam District and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.1140 of 2003 Oral order: The petitioners, numbering 12, filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in demolishing the shops of the petitioners in Gandhi Park Shopping Complex in Township ‘A’ of Araku Valley without due process of law as arbitrary and illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue to do the business in the same site which was in their occupation earlier or in the alternative provide suitable site. According to the petitioners, though the land where the petitioners put up their shops is exempted from the Agency Land Transfer Regulation Act, 1970, the Government in order to develop the agency area declared the lands in Kantabasuguda village as township land and non-tribals were invited by the Government to come and occupy the land by establishing their business by granting permission to such shelters to build their houses in the land. The petitioners, who are all non-tribals, along with others came to Kantabasuguda village, which is now called as Araku valley 30 to 35 years back and constructed RCC slabbed shops in Township ‘A’ of Araku valley adjacent to Museum Compound wall; since then they are paying land revenue and professional taxes and other property taxes to the local authorities and they are connected with electricity and telephone etc. As the Araku Utsavam is scheduled to be held from 27th to 30th December, 2002, in order to erect a gate on the South—Eastern side corner of the shops and also to provide easy ingress and egress to the tourists who will be presented in large numbers during the said Utsav, the respondents have demolished the shops of the petitioners on 09/10-11-2002 without giving any notice in spite of protest made by the petitioners not to demolish the shops pleading alternative site for carrying on business. The petitioners came to know that the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 14-11-2002 issued a direction to the 4th respondent to provide alternative site of petitioners’ choice. Therefore, necessary direction may be issued to the respondents. Respondent No.4 filed a counter on behalf of all the respondents contending that the petitioners are non-tribals and they illegally encroached the Government land, which is classified as road poramboke and township poramboke covered by plot Nos.54 part, 60 part, 68 part and A/95 part in Block No.A/95 part in Block No.A of Araku valley township and they have no right either to remain in possession of the land in contravention of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation I/1959) as amended by Regulation I/70 nor they are eligible for assignment of the Government land. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam passed an order vide Rc.No.4842/2002/E2, dated 07-11-2002 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 7A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “the Act”) to evict the unauthorized occupants to form foot paths, drains on the margins and to get the museum compound beautified. Pursuant to the said order, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Araku valley evicted 68 encroachers including 12 petitioners on 09-11-2002 and 10-11-2002. The eviction of the petitioners along with other objectionable and ineligible encroachers from the land was carried out as per the orders of the District Collector passed under Section 7A of the Act. In view of order passed by the Collector, there is no necessity to issue notices to the encroachers before evicting them and denied the plea taken by the petitioners that the 3rd respondent—Sub-Collector, Paderu issued directions to the 4th respondent—MRO, Araku valley on 14-11-2002 to provide alternative site at the petitioners’ choice in response to their representation dated 11-11-202. The 3rd respondent has simply forwarded the representation to the 4th respondent with an endorsement “it may be considered only after suitable vacant site is identified and discuss with the Sub-Collector as soon as they propose any alternate site.” On forwarding the said representation, the M.R.O., Araku valley— 4th respondent examined the matter and finally concluded that there is no feasibility to provide any alternate site to the petitioners as per the representation made by them on 11-11-2002 to the Sub-Collector—3rd respondent, as they are being non-tribals and ineligible to provide site within the tribal area. It is also denied that the third parties are trying to encroach the said site and the respondents are not taking any steps to prevent such encroachment. As per the proposed developmental works, in first phase, the footpaths and other structures have already been formed in view of developing tourism in the land, which was taken possession after evicting the petitioners, and there is no chance of occupying the said site by the encroachers. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners, who are migrated to Araku valley 30 to 35 years back and doing business, were made shelterless and they should be provided alternate site as directed by the Supreme Court in OLGA TELLIS v. BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION[1]. Section 7A of the Act authorizes the District Collector for ordering eviction of group of persons encroached on a Government land without any notice for immediate eviction of the encroacher from the land and taking of possession of the land, and thereupon it is lawful for any officer authorised by the District Collector in this behalf to evict the encroachers from the land by force, taking such police protection, as may be necessary, to take possession of the land. Against any order passed by the District Collector, ordering eviction under Section 7A of the Act, Government can entertain a revision either suo motu or on application made by aggrieved party under Section 12A of the Act. Even the petitioners themselves admitted that Araku Utsavam is scheduled to be held from 27th to 30th December, 2002. In order to provide facilities to the tourists, who represent in large numbers during the said Utsavam period, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam passed the orders for eviction of the petitioners to attract more tourists. Except orally stating that the petitioners are living 30—35 years no evidence has been produced by the petitioners to establish their longstanding possession as alleged. Since the petitioners are non-tribals, they are not entitled for grant of alternate land and also cannot possess the land in contravention of the Regulations. Since the order passed by the District Collector was already implemented, they cannot plead for alternate site, which is in contravention of A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959. It is well settled that Mandamus can be issued when a person’s rights are infringed against the public authority. The duty that may be enjoined by Mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law. Mandamus can also be issued to maintain possession of a person in the manner prescribed under law. (See AIR 2002 SC 1598 = (2002) 4 SCC 638). Since Section 7A of the Act authorized the Collector to get the encroacher evicted without hearing and without issuing any notice, it cannot be said the revenue officials have acted in contravention of the provisions of the Act in taking possession for issuing a Mandamus to provide alternate site. The Supreme Court in OLGA TELLIS case (1 supra), on which much reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in para-51 of the judgment after referring to the observations in S. L. KAPOOR v. JAGMOHAN (AIR 1981 SC 136) "...where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs." held we do not see any justification for asking the Commissioner to hear the petitioners, we propose to pass an order which, we believe, he would or should have passed, had he granted a hearing to them and heard what we did. The Supreme Court can pass such orders in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, which the High Court cannot. The petitioners cannot treat the same as a precedent for seeking the same relief. I do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for grant of any relief. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 03-03-2011 Murthy [1] AIR 1986 SC 180 = (1985) 3 SCC 545