IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 25614 of 2008 Between: Sangam Narasamma and three others. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and four others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No : 25614 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the proposed action of the 3rd respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, in removing the petitioners’ hutments situated in Sy.No.181/1 of Kothapet village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to facilitate the 5th respondent to have a cement road to his sheds, which are illegally laid, without properly identifying the land and without putting the petitioners on notice, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. According to the petitioners, they, along with other hut dwellers of Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Chaitanyapuri colony, are residing in the Government land for the last 25 years. The said land is located in Sy. No.181/1 of Kothapet village, Uppal Mndal, Ranga Reddy District. Earlier, they fled W.P.No.19017 of 2005 seeking following reliefs: “a) To issue house site pattas in Sy. No.181/1 Dr.Ambedkaranagar, Chaitanyanpuri, Kothapet village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without any further delay, b) To grant compensation to the petitioners at the rate of Rs.50,000/- each for hardships sustained by them on account of the atrocious action of respondents 1 to 4, and c) To evict the petitioners if all similarly situated persons are evicted from the land admeasuring Ac.11.01 guntas in Sy. No.181/1 of Dr. Ambedkarnagar, Chaitanyapuri, Kothapet village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.” The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 05-09-2008, directing the 1st respondent to consider their claims as per rules. In compliance of the said order, the petitioners filed applications before the Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, which are pending consideration. Further, the Government has accepted for regularization of the petitioners’ possession. But, the revenue authorities, after having agreed to consider their claims under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02-2008, colluded with respondent No.5, who had an intention to grab the land occupied by the petitioners under fake documents. The 5th respondent filed H.R.C.No.1579 of 2006 on the file of the Human Rights Commission (for brevity ‘the Commission’), Hyderabad, against the respondents regarding the same dispute as raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition, wherein, the Commission, while closing H.R.C.No.1579 of 2006, directed the Collector to take follow up action and ensure that the road as mentioned in the order of the High Court in W.P.No.19017 of 2005 should be maintained clearly without any encroachments including the road margins. While so, on 18-11-2008, the 3rd respondent approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B.Nagar Zone, seeking police assistance to remove the houses of the petitioners to implement ex parte order passed by the Commission in H.R.C.No.1579 of 2006, dated 17-10- 2008. It is further alleged that the respondents attached much significance to the order of the Commission, which does not specifically speak anything about the merits of the case, but it only reiterated the operative portion of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19017 of 2005, dated 05-09-2008. The Tahsildar, Uppal Mandal, and the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Goshmahal, visited the spot on 18-11-2008 and after survey, they clarified that the sheds of the 5th respondent are located in Sy.No.181/1, but not in Sy. No.181/5 as claimed by the respondent No.5. However, the respondents are reluctant to come to rescue the petitioners, though they are duty bound to protect their rights. Therefore, the present writ petition. 3. There is no need to go into all the details with regard to petitioners’ approaching this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, in W.P.No.19017 of 2005, wherein, the 5th respondent has categorically admitted that his land does not fall into Sy. No.181/1 and it falls only in Sy. No.181/5 and the 5th respondent has no objection to dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners for regularization according to G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02-2008. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.1 herein to dispose of the applications said to have been filed by the petitioners for regularization of their possession. Further, the 1st respondent was also directed to ensure that while considering the applications of the petitioners, they shall not be permitted to occupy the road or road margins and shall not cause any inconvenience to the residents of the said area, including respondent No.5 herein. 4. It appears from the record that the said orders were not implemented. Thus, respondent No.5 approached the Commission. The Commission disposed of the application with the following observation: “This case originally stood posted to 04-12-2008 and the petitioner, by filing a copy of the judgment of AP High Court, has sought to advance the matter. But, after the adjudication of the matter by the A.P. High Court, the question of further adjudication by this Commission does not arise except asking the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, as to the follow-up action. Hence, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, should ensure that the road, as mentioned in the order of the A.P. High Court, should be maintained clearly, without any encroachments, including the road margins. The said exercise shall be made by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, by 31-12-2008.” A perusal of the above order clearly shows that the Commission has not passed any orders on merits. On the other hand, it suggested the respondents to implement the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.19017 of 2005, dated 05-09-2008. 5. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that in the guise of the said order, the respondents are trying to evict the petitioners from their plots. 6. On 24-11-2008, this Court, while admitting writ petition, passed order of status quo in W.P.M.P.No.33485 of 2008. Now the 5th respondent has filed W.V.M.P.No.2159 of 2009 seeking to vacate the order of status quo dated 24-11-2008. 7. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the 5th respondent, strenuously contended that the status quo order is creating law and order problem on the ground level and also coming in the way of the respondents in taking decision as per the orders passed by this Court in the earlier W.P.No.19017 of 2005, dated 05-09-2008, and, therefore, the authorities have not taken any decision so far. He has also contended that since the 5th respondent has a land in Sy. No.181/5 alone, he has no interest whatsoever in the land situated in Sy. No.181/1. Therefore, there is no conflict over the land of the petitioners, and that is the reason why, the respondent No.5 had stated in the earlier writ petition that he has no objection to consider the case of the petitioners under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02-2006, for regularization of their possession, but the fact remains that in the guise of seeking regularization, the petitioners are creating hurdle in the way of the 5th respondent in enjoying his plot of 300 square yards located in Sy. No.181/5. 8. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the official respondents, in the guise of implementing the orders, are trying to evict the petitioners, who are residing in the land located in Sy. No.181/1. Therefore, the action of the respondents appears to be not proper. 9. From the above, it is clear that there is a dispute as to the identity of the land. However, since the status quo order dated 24-1-2008 is creating hurdle in the way of implementation of the order passed in the earlier W.P.No.19017 of 2005, dated 05-09-2008, the said order is liable to be vacated. 10. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the official respondents to implement the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19017 of 2005, dated 05-09-2008, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, positively, and if necessary, they may conduct a survey and decide the matter on merits as to the regularization of the lands and possession of the petitioners in Sy. No.181/1 of Kothapet village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 08th October 2009 kvr