THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 5972 of 2008 and C.C. No. 733 of 2008 Common order: Petitioner No.1 is Sundarayya Vyavasaya Coolila Sankshema Sangham (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Sangham”), while petitioner Nos. 2 to 12 are its members. They state that the land in an extent of more than Acs. 100.00 in Sy. Nos. 70, 71, 72 and 73 and land in an extent of more than Acs. 125.00 in Sy. Nos. 346 and 746 of Tamaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam, is government land, and that said land was distributed to landless poor persons and D.K.T. pattas also were issued. According to the petitioners, the said landless poor persons, sold the lands given to them to Youth Charitable Organization, Yelamanchili, and that the government having come to know about the said alienations, cancelled the allotments and took possession of the same. As the government resumed the said lands, and they having stood vested in the government, the petitioners state that they being landless poor persons, and they having given their land to the government for construction of aluminium factory, subject to certain conditions, namely (1) payment of compensation, (2) providing employment to one of the family members in the aluminum factory and (3) allotment of house site pattas, after informing respondent No.3, namely the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Makavarapalem, and other revenue oﬃcials, raised thatched houses in the land situated in Sy. Nos. 70 to 73, and are living therein, and claim that they are entitled to be given pattas in respect of the said lands. Now it is the grievance of the petitioners that oﬃcial respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and their subordinates, at the instance of local politicians, are trying to dispossess them from the lands in question. Hence, they ﬁled this writ petition. This Court on 26.03.2008, while ordering notice before admission, directed the parties to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day. Alleging violation of the said status quo order, the petitioners ﬁled contempt case on 24.06.2008, which was numbered as C.C. No. 733 of 2008. On 22.08.2008, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, ﬁled an application in W.P.M.P. No. 24848 of 2008, seeking to implead it as respondent No.3 in the writ petition. As respondent Nos. 1 and 2 despite granting time, did not ﬁle their counters, this Court by order dated 27.08.2008, admitted the writ petition. After admission of the writ petition, one Sri. Y. Srinu and 46 others ﬁled application in W.P.M.P. No. 27146 of 2008, seeking to implead them as respondent Nos. 4 to 50 in the writ petition, and the same by order dated 25.09.2008 was allowed. Oﬃcial respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and unoﬃcial respondent Nos. 4 to 50 ﬁled applications, supported by counters-aﬃdavits, praying to vacate the status quo order passed by this Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of oﬃcial respondent Nos. 1 and 2 reiterating the counter averments submitted that land in an extent of Acs. 33.14 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 70 to 75 of Tamaram village, was assigned to landless poor persons, but the beneﬁciaries in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, sold the land assigned to them to Youth Charitable Organization, during the years 1984, 1988 and 1994. Therefore, after following the procedure contemplated under the said Act, respondent No.2, vide orders dated 24.09.2004, evicted the said Youth Charitable Organization and resumed the land to the government on 20.11.2004. Aggrieved by the said resumption order, the said Youth Charitable Organization and two others ﬁled writ petition in W.P. No. 1405 of 2005, which by order dated 07.01.2008, was dismissed. He submitted that government have taken a decision to acquire large extents of lands in Rachapalli, Koduru, Tamaram and Bheemaboina palem villages of Makavarapalem Mandal, for establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC, and in pursuance of the said decision, proceedings to acquire the said lands was taken. He denied the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the lands, and submitted that the government having resumed the lands from Youth Charitable Organization, is in possession and enjoyment thereof right from the date of resumption, and from the year 2005, it has been auctioning the cashew and mango topes. The petitioners at the instance of representatives of a political party, forcibly tried to occupy the land and attempted to raise huts during the year 2006 with a view to claim ex gratia, but the government prevented their designs. He submitted that the petitioners under the guise of interim orders passed by this Court, made attempts to encroach upon the land on 05.05.2008, and when the same was prevented with the assistance of the police, they ﬁled contempt case against the oﬃcial respondents. In fact, the Tahsildar on 19.05.2008 lodged a F.I.R. in Crime No. 33 of 2008 on the ﬁle of Station House Oﬃcer, Makavarapalem, against the petitioners and others for the oﬀences under Sections 186 and 188 IPC. He contended that it is the petitioners and not the oﬃcials respondents who violated the status quo orders passed by this Court. Be that as it may, he submitted that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the government for house site/agricultural land pattas in respect of other vacant land, and their cases would be considered by the government subject to eligibility, assignment rules and availability of lands. The learned Standing Counsel for APIIC, which sought to get impleaded as party-respondent No.3 in the writ petition, submitted that APIIC made a request to respondent No.1, namely District Collector, Visakhapatnam, for allotment of land in an extent of Acs. 67.22 guntas in Sy. Nos. 70 to 73 of Tamaram village, for establishment of an Industrial Park, and proposals with respect thereto are pending. The petitioners without making APIIC as party-respondent ﬁled the present writ petition. He submitted that because of the status quo order granted by this Court, proposals with respect to alienation of the land in their favour, are kept pending. He further contended that unless the land in question is allotted to them, they cannot take any steps for establishing the Industrial Park, which in fact, is sought to be established in larger public interest. He thus prayed that APIIC be impleaded as party respondent and considering the stand taken by them, the status quo order be vacated and the writ petition dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 50 submitted that petitioner No.1 cannot maintain a writ petition on behalf of persons, purported to be its members, whose details are not disclosed, as held by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 17.04.2001, passed in W.A. No. 567 of 2001. The petitioners have no legally enforceable right, much less to seek directions for grant of pattas in the lands identiﬁed by them. The petitioners are not in possession of the lands in question. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 are not similarly situated as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, in that petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 claim that they were allegedly displaced by virtue of land acquisition proceedings, whereas petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are not, and therefore, they cannot maintain common writ petition. He contended that the lands owned by respondent Nos. 4 to 50 and others, are subject matter of land acquisition proceedings, which is sought to be acquired by APIIC for establishing an Industrial Park, and all the villagers of Kothapalem, including respondent Nos. 4 to 50 would be displaced, and they apart from getting the statutory beneﬁts, as per the rehabilitation package, they would be accommodate in an extent of Acs. 70.00 in Sy. Nos. 70 to 73 of Tamaram village, and in fact, a requisition dated 07.03.2007, was submitted by the Chief General Manager, APIIC, Visakhapatnam, to respondent No.1-Government. The petitioners who are third parties, cannot claim any assignment in the land earmarked for their allotment. The petitioners not being displaced persons, cannot as a matter of right, seeking assignment of a particular piece of land, much less the land identiﬁed for allotment to persons, whose lands were acquired for establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3- APIIC and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 50. The fact that the land in question, was taken possession of by the government from Youth Charitable Organization after following the due process of land, inasmuch as it is said to have purchased the land from the original assignees, in violation of the conditions of assignment, and the writ petition ﬁled by the said Organization, was also dismissed, is not in dispute. Though the petitioners claim that they had given their lands to the government for establishment of Industrial Park, and that respondent No.2 in lieu thereof had permitted them to occupy the lands in Sy. Nos. 70 to 75 of Tamaram village, and that they having occupied the lands raised thatched houses therein and are living therein, the same is disputed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and it is their speciﬁc case that neither the Tahsildar permitted them to occupy the lands in question nor their lands were occupied, and as such, they are neither entitled to any compensation nor any rehabilitation. In fact, the petitioners except contending that they lost their lands for establishing of Industrial Park by APIIC, have not ﬁled any material to show that their lands were acquired by the government for the purpose, which entitled them to claim compensation and other benefits, including allotment of house sites. Even though petitioner No. 1 contended that some of its members, are similarly placed as that of respondent Nos. 4 to 50, who have lost their lands in Kothapalem village, and as such, are entitled to be given house site pattas in the land in Sy. Nos. 70 to 75 of Tamaram village, which is earmarked for rehabilitation of land losers, the fact remains, only 11 persons, purporting to be members of petitioner No.1, have ﬁled the writ petition, even though petitioner No.1 claimed that it has on its rolls 150 members, and all of them had raised huts. In fact, it is the speciﬁc case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the land in an extent of Acs. 70.00 in Sy. Nos. 70 to 75 of Tamaram village, is earmarked for rehabilitation of respondent Nos. 4 to 50 and similarly situated persons, whose lands were acquired for establishing the Industrial Park by APIIC. The petitioners, having failed to place any material to show that their lands were acquired by the government for establishment of Industrial Park and that the Tahsildar had permitted them to occupy the land, cannot claim to have any legal right, much less any vested right to seek allotment of a particular piece of land as house sites, and that too, which was earmarked for rehabilitation of persons, like respondent Nos. 4 to 50, who as admitted to by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have lost their lands for establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC, which is for a public purpose. Since the land in Sy. Nos. 70 to 75 of Tamaram village, is said to have been earmarked for rehabilitation of respondent Nos. 4 to 50, whose lands are said to have been acquired by the government for a public purpose, it is not proper for this Court to direct allotment of the said lands to persons, much less the petitioners, who are not covered by the rehabilitation scheme. However, since it is submitted by petitioner No.1 that some of its members are similarly placed as respondent Nos. 4 to 50, whose lands also were acquired by the government for establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC, this order would not preclude respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from after verifying the eligibility of such persons, and if found to be covered by the rehabilitation policy, considering their cases also for allotment of house sites in the remaining land, if any. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have failed to show any right, much less legal or vested right, to seek allotment of the land in question, and their possession and occupation of the land having been denied by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, much less by their permission, I am of the considered opinion, that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be said to have committed any violation of the status quo order passed by this Court, alleging violation of which the petitioners filed the contempt case. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petition and contempt case are dismissed. The order of status quo granted by this Court on 26.03.2008 shall stand vacated. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 20th November, 2008. KSR