IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2360 of 2005 Between: 1 B. Bhgya Lakshmi, W/o B. Laxmaiah, 2 P. Reddemma, D/o P. Krishnaiah, 3 D. Ramadevi, W/o D. Narasimhulu, 4 D. Rajamma, w/o D. Adeiah, 5 M. Laxmi, D/o M. Reddemma, 6 V. Munemma, W/o V. Venkataramana, 7 N. Laxmidevi, W/o N. Eswaraiah, 8 C. Nagalaxmi, D/o C. Babu, 9 K. Sridevi, w/o K. Venkatesh, 10 M. Premeela, W/o M. Chengal Rayulu, 11 M. Indira, w/o M. Muragan, 12 N. Vasanthi, W/o R.Narayana, 13 C. Laxmi , W/o C. Ravi, 14 S. Sumathi, W/o S. Chandrasekhar Raju, 15 R. Shanthi, W/o R. Ramakrishna, 16 Y. Nagarajamma, W/o Nagaiah, 17 S. Swaramma, w/o Subbaramaiah, 18 M. Laxmamma, W/o M. Ramaiah, 19 K. Hemalatha, w/o K. Eswaraiah, 20 S. Gracepaul, W/o S.I.C. Sekhar, 21 J. Anitha, W/o J.Babu, 22 K. Sukanya, W/o K. Gopal, 23 D. Devika, W/o D. Chandra, 24 D. Saraswathi, W/o Ravindra Babu, 25 Y. Vijaya Laxmi, W/o Y. Gangaiah, 26 V. Yanadamma, W/o V. Eswaraiah, 27 P. Sekhar, S/o P.Munaswamy, 28 A. Subbanarayana, s/o Subba Rao, 29 A. Bhagayalakshmi, W/o A. Deenadayal, 30 A. Padmavathi, w/o A. Sreehari, 31 G. Suma, w/o G. Ananda, 32 B. Sulochana, w/o B. Gangulappa, 33 B. Shanthi, W/o B. Veeraiah, 34 P. Sobha, w/o P. Gurunatha, 35 Y. Bhagyalaxmi, w/o Y. Satyanarayana, 36 P. Tejawathi, W/o P. Ramesh, 37 M. Ratnamma, W/o M. Ravinder, 38 Y. Neela, W/o Y. Juni, 39 K. Prabhavathi, w/o Ramamoorthy, 40 P. Lalaitha, w/o Bhaskar, 41 R. Kavitha, w/o R. Ramu., 42 E. Runemma, w/o Venkatamuni 43 M. Bharathi, W/o M.Munirathnam, 44 E. Sharada, w/o E. Munedra, 45 D. Kavitha, W/o Munikrishnaiah, 46 D. Munagamma. W/o Venkatasubbaiah, 47 E. Guramma,a w/o Muni Krishnaiah, 48 P. Nagamma, w/o P. Beekaiah, 49 D. Munilakshmi, W/o D. Murthy, 50 K. Chenchamma, W/o Venkata Muni, 51 K.Nirmalamma, w/o K. Krishnaiah, 52 E. Yasoda, D/o E.Munaswamy, 53 E. Laxmamma, w/o E. Venkatamuni,. 54 K. Mallika, w/o K. Munikrishna, 55 P.Nagamunemma, w/o P. Damodaram, 56 B.Kalyani, w/o B. Mulali, 57 P. Chenchamma, W/o Chengaiah, 58 P. Chengamma, w/o P. Narayana, 59 N. Bujjamma, W/o Nagaiah, 60 E.Nagamma, w/o E. Chengalrayalu 61 C.Mangamma, w/o C. Suraiah, 62 U. Atchamma, w/o U. Kannaiah, 63 G. Aruna, W/o G.Prakash, 64 G. Ranamma, W/o G. Pandaiah, 65 P. Dillibai, w/o Munirathnam, 66 K. Munaswami, s/o Gangaiah, 67 K. Savithri, w/o K. Chakrapani, 68 K. Revathi, w/o K. Bhaskar, 69 M. Padmavathi, w/o Devendra Prasad, 70 G. Subbamma, W/o Chengaiah, 71 M.Neelaprasad, s/o Rajendra Prasad, 72 N. Jaya Lakshmi, s/o Munirathnam, 73 T. Kavitha, W/o T. Sudhakaraiah, 74 D. Kumari, W/o D. Babu, 75 M. Nagamalleswari, w/o M. Vasu, 76 P. Chandrakala, w/o P. Suseelababu, 77 Roopavani, w/o Ramesh, 78 Swarna, W/o Bhupal, 79 M. Leelavathamma, W/o M. Sreenivasulu, 80 K. Harinath, S/o Venkataiah, 81 K. Rajani, W/o Girinath, 82 A. Munemma, w/o A. Subbaiah, 83 A. Devi, W/o A. Balakrishna 84 T. Ramamoorthy, s/o T. Yethirajulu, 85 S. Narayana, S/o Sivaiah, 86 T. Ramanamma, w/o T. Babu, 87 S. Sumshad, s/o S.M. Bhasha, 88 S. Haleema, W/o S. Goush Modun, 89 H.R. Gayathri, w/o H.R. Pramavathi, 90 A. Saraswathi, S/o A. Kumar, 91 P. Ramani, W/o P. Subramanyam, 92 P. Munaswami, S/o P. Kuppaiah, 93 S. Harun, S/o S. Basha, 94 S Raffi, s/o S. Mahaboob Saheb, 95 S. Anasuya, w/o Shivaji, 96 S. Husen Basha, s/o Khadar Basha, 97 S. Bhanubee, S/o S. Husenbhasa, 98 S. Manjula, w/o Narayana Rao, 99 D. Nirmala, W/o Krishnaji Rao, 100 P.Nirmala, w/o P. Nagabhushunam, All the petitioners are residing in R.S.No.107 & 109, Daminedu village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the 3rd respondent without considering the representations made by the petitioners for house site pattas in Sy.Nos. 107 and 109 of Daminedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District, on the other hand dispossessing the petitioners from the house sites bearing in Sy.Nos. 107 and 109 of Daminedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Art.14, 19 (1) (e), 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents more particularly 3rd respondent not to dispossess the petitioners from the house sites bearing in Sy.Nos. 107 and 109 of Daminedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal,Chittoor District, pending consideration of their representations and to pass necessary order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The case of the petitioners is that they, who have been residing in the land in S.No.107 and 109 of Daminedu Village had submitted an application for assignment of the land in their possession in their favour as per the relevant G.Os and Board Standing Orders, but the second respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi) is trying to evict them without passing any orders on their application for assignment. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that some of the encroachers in the same S.No. had filed W.P.No.9268 of 2004 seeking the same relief sought in this petition, and that this Court by its order dated 25-05-2004 directed maintenance of status-quo and so the respondents in this case also may be directed not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the land in S.Nos.107 and 109 of Daminedu Village till the disposal of the representations submitted by them. Heard the learned Government Pleader. 3. The first document produced by the petitioners, along with this petition, shows that first petitioner and five others, who are not parties to this writ petition, submitted an application to the Collector, Chittoor, on 24.01.2005, for assignment stating that they are in occupation of the land in S.No.107 by raising huts, as the Mandal Revenue Officer directed them to approach him i.e. the Collector, they are giving the representation to him. The next document relied on by the petitioners is the representation given by 28 persons to the Joint Collector, Chittoor, on 10.01.2005, stating that they, who have been residing in S.No.107 from a few years by raising huts, may be favoured with assignment of that land. Another document relied on by the petitioners is a letter dated 16.10.2002 addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, where it is stated that some of the residents of Upparapalem Muthyalamma Mitta Dalitha Wada of Tirupathi Urban Mandal gave a representation to A.P. State Assembly committee on 01.08.2002 requesting allotment of house sites, and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, inspected the land measuring Ac.1-88 cents in S.No.107 of Daminedu village and instructed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi, to address the Executive Engineer (Irrigation) to offer his technical opinion in respect of the said land and so he is addressing such letter to the Executive Engineer. The other document relied on by the petitioners is a letter dated 09.12.2002 addressed by the Executive Engineer, I&CAD, Tirupathi, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, in which it is stated that since no agricultural lands are existing near Ac.1-88 cents in S.No.107 of Daminedu village it can be alienated, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Another document relied on by the petitioners is a letter dated 28.01.2003 addressed to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural, intimating the views of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation & CAD, in which he stated that R.Jayalakshmi and 129 others of Upparapalle H.W. Village gave a representation for issuance of house site pattas in Ac.1-88 cents of S.No.107 of Daminedu village of Tirupathi Rural Mandal, and that that land can be alienated to them subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 4. None of the documents relied on by the petitioners show their possession over, nor is there a reference to, S.No.109 of Daminedu village relating to which also petitioners sought a relief. So, the contention of the petitioners that they are in occupation of some extent of land in S.No.109 of Daminedu village is not and cannot be correct. Therefore, none of the petitioners are entitled to any relief in respect of S.No.109 of Daminedu village. 5. From the documents produced by the petitioners it cannot be said that all the petitioners are in occupation of the land in S.No.107 of Daminedu village because the representation given to the Collector on 24.01.2005 shows that B.Bhagyalakshmi alone joined the others in filing this petition as first petitioner and none of the five other representationists are parties to this petition. Similarly, many or none of the representationists in the representation given to the Joint Collector on 10.01.2005 joined the others in filing this petition. No document is produced by the petitioners to show that all or many of them made a representation to the concerned officer seeking assignment of the land. In fact, none of the documents produced by the petitioners show their possession over the land in S.No.109. The fact that 1st petitioner and some others made a representation to the Collector and Joint Collector seeking assignment of land alleging that they are in possession of the land in S.No.107 of Daminedu village cannot be taken to mean that those applicants established their possession over the land, because a person not in possession can also make an application alleging to be in possession of the land in respect of which he is seeking assignment. Probably taking a cue from the orders dated 25.05.2004 in W.P.No.9268 of 2004 directing the parties to maintain status-quo, with a hope that they also can obtain such order and enter into and continue in possession without being evicted therefrom, persons who recently encroached into the land without any entitlement for assignments also could have figured as petitioners in this petition. 6. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents to pass orders, on merits, on the applications submitted by B. Bhagyalakshmi and five others which was received by the Collector on 24.01.2005, and the representation given to the Joint Collector on 10.01.2005 by 28 persons, and communicate the same to the representationists as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the respondents shall not dispossess only the representationists in those representations, if they joined as petitioners in this petition, from the land in S.No.107 of Daminedu village. This order does not apply to the land in S.No.109 of Daminedu village. Petitioners who did not make a representation to the Collector or to the Joint Collector mentioned above, are not entitled to the above protection and can be evicted from the land in S.Nos.107 and 109 of Daminedu village by following due process of law. 7. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. -------------------------- (C.Y.Somayajulu, J.) Date: 15/02/2005 Cvrk Note: Office to furnish certified copy in two days. //By order// cvrk ……………REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY// ………… SECTION OFFICER To 1. The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4. The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 5. The Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 6. 2 CD copies