IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3408 of 2005 Date: 23rd December, 2010 Between: K.Narayanamma and others. . Petitioners And The District Collector, Kadapa and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3408 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by second respondent in Ref.No.B1/936/2004 dated 30.12.2004 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Board Standing Order and Act 9/77 and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their lands in S.No.1117/1 of Thallapaka village, Rajampet mandal, Kadapa district. The facts are not much in dispute. Petitioners were granted house site pattas of 0.03 cents each vide patta Nos.1437/03, 1439/03 and 1440/03 dated 21.10.2003 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising small houses and living therein. While that being so, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2004 stating that the land allotted to the petitioners in Sy.No.1117/1 is inclusive of an area of 0.24 acres out of 2-62 acres of land, which is classified as ‘road poramboke’ and is required for the purpose of construction of shopping complex by the Gram Panchayat concerned. It is further alleged that the petitioners have violated other conditions of assignment. The fact that the petitioners have constructed houses in the land allotted to them and living therein, is not in dispute. The main ground on which, their pattas are sought to be cancelled is that the land is required for construction of shopping complex by the Gram Panchayat. May be, in a given case, if the land is required for construction of shopping complex, the respondents are always at liberty to acquire the land by invoking land acquisition proceedings and by paying compensation, but on the ground that it required for the purpose of construction of shopping complex, the respondents could not have cancelled the pattas granted to the petitioners and allot the land in favour of Gram Panchayat. Be that as it may, the ground on which the land assigned in favour of petitioners is required for locating the Shopping Complex by the Gram Panchayat cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. If such land is required for locating the shopping complex, it is always open for the respondents to invoke land acquisition proceedings and if no alternate land is available, pay compensation to the petitioners, and acquire the land, but not otherwise. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 23.12.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3408 of 2005 23.12.2010