IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3430 of 2003 Between: Attili Veera Raju S/o.Narasimham R/o.D.No.2-5-10, Ist Ward, Palakol, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasapur Sub-Division, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Palakol Mandal, Palakol, West Godavari District. 4 The Municipal Commissioner, Palakol Municipality, Palakol, West Godavari District. 5 Smt.Vulli Ramalakshmi W/o.Venkataswamy Ist Ward, Lazapathiroypeta, Palakol, West Godavari 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, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not passing any orders in R.O.C.H.242/2000 Dt. 31-1- 2001 for removal of encroachment structure made by the 5th respondent over the drinking water pipe line in 1st Ward of Lazapathiraypet, Palakol Municipality which is pending before him 2 years and consequently direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders in ROC.H.242/2000 dt.31-1-2001 for removal of encroachment made by the 5th respondent as early as possible. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims that he owns a dwelling house bearing Door No.2-5-10 located at 1st Ward, Palakol Municipality, West Godavari District and was allotted connection for supply of drinking water by the Palakol Municipality in the year 1985. It is his case that the 5th respondent encroached into the land, in an extent of 16 yards, between his house and the road situated on the northern side of his house and constructed a thatched house over the drinking water pipeline connected to his house and, therefore, he approached the municipal authorities as also the revenue authorities and submitted several representations and, pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur Sub Division, directed the respondents 3 and 4, Mandal Revenue Officer, Palakol Mandal and the Municipal Commissioner, Palakol Municipality respectively, to inspect the encroached site and submit a report. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the 2nd respondent stating that the 5th respondent was allotted the said site by the then Mandal Revenue Officer and she constructed a house therein in the year 1994 and that she has closed the drain and thereby causing inconvenience to get the drain cleared and get the water pipeline repaired whenever necessary. The 3rd respondent, in his report, also recommended for cancellation of allotment of house site granted in favour of the 5th respondent by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Palakol. The 4th respondent also submitted his report in similar lines and recommended for removal of the structures raised by the 5th respondent. Basing on the said reports, the 2nd respondent conducted an enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, and ultimately cancelled the allotment made in favour of the 5th respondent, by order dated 18.12.1996, and required the 4th respondent to take steps for removal of the structures raised by the 5th respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the 1st respondent- District Collector, West Godavari District, and obtained stay of the operation of the order of the 2nd respondent. However, ultimately, the 1st respondent, holding that the notices issued by the 2nd respondent were not served on the 5th respondent and that the 2nd respondent passed orders without giving sufficient opportunity to the 5th respondent, remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent, by order dated 11.01.2000, and directed him to conduct fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders, after giving sufficient opportunity to both the 5th respondent and the petitioner. After such remand, the 2nd respondent issued notices to the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent on 31.01.2001 asking them to appear before him on 05.02.2001 and accordingly they appeared and were heard. Thereafter, since the 2nd respondent has not passed final orders in the matter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court, while admitting the writ petition on 26.02.2003, passed interim order in W.P.M.P.No.4498 of 2003, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders in the matter and communicate the same to the parties. It appears, in pursuance of the said interim order, the 2nd respondent passed orders on 27.09.2003 stating that the grievance of the petitioner was redressed permanently by diverting the pipeline supplying water to his house and that there will not be any obstruction for the petitioner to have free access to his house and thus no further action is called for to evict the 5th respondent from the house site allotted to her. In order to challenge the said order of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.32892 of 2003 seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition and the same was allowed by this Court on 12.02.2004. Thus, the order dated 27.09.2003 passed by the 2nd respondent is now under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as many as seven persons including the 5th respondent have occupied the road margin and constructed thatched houses, causing inconvenience to the petitioner, and the 2nd respondent did not consider the matter in right perspective and erred in holding that the grievance of the petitioner was redressed permanently. He also contended that the 5th respondent and other encroachers have been polluting the locality. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. For better appreciation, it is appropriate to refer to the relevant findings of the 2nd respondent in the impugned order, which read as under: “There are about seven families residing along the road margin for whom pattas were also given after taking consent of the Municipality in 1999. The petitioner Attili Veerraju did not raise any objection at the time of issue of allotment orders regularizing these encroachments. The petitioner’s house and premises is abutting to the National Highway 214 on the southern side and the 1st lane of Lajapathiroypeta on the Northern side (backyard). The alleged pipeline is running underneath the seven houses lying in the road margin and if the house and encroachment of Smt. Ulli Rama Lakshmi is removed, the grievance of the petitioner will not be redressed. At the time of inspection, the persons living in these seven houses have submitted a representation stating that they will bear the expenditure for diversion of the pipeline for supply of water to the house of the petitioner from the existing pipeline (by laying another pipeline from the site in front of their houses). When contacted the Municipal Commissioner, Palakol, in this regard, he has submitted a letter dated 26.09.2003 stating that action was initiated to shift the public tap connection and house service connection relating to the house of Sri Attili Veerraju from the existing 50 MM PVC pipeline to new 110 MM PVC pipeline which is located opposite to the thatched houses in the Lajapathiroypeta, 1st ward. It is further stated that unless alternative living accommodation is shown the persons living in urban slums should not be evicted. By diverting the pipeline supplying water to the house of the petitioner, the main grievance of the petitioner is redressed permanently. The house site pattas granted to Smt. Ulli Rama Lakshmi and 6 others will not cause any objection to the petitioner to have free access to his house. Further, the petitioner cannot demand for eviction of anybody living in a Government land for his personal benefit. Since the main grievance of the petitioner is redressed, no further action is called for to evict Smt. Ulli Rama Lakshmi w/o. Venkata Swamy from the house site allotted to her in T.S.No.89 of Palakol Town.” From the above findings, it is clear that the grievance of the petitioner was redressed permanently and, thus, he cannot seek eviction of the people from the house sites allotted to them by the Government. If the petitioner is really aggrieved by any act of the 5th respondent and others, polluting the locality, it is always open for him to workout his remedies as available under law. I am of the opinion that this writ petition is filed only to wreck vengeance against the poor people who have been allotted small Government house sites on the road margin. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 26th June, 2009. CBS/IBL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.3430 of 2003 26th June, 2009 CBS/IBL proceethe matter to the 2nd respondent for conducting fresh enquiry after giving an opportunity to both the parties cancelled the allotment order in T.S.No.89 to an extent of 16 years granted in favour of the 5th respondent vide proceedings No.D.Dis.353/96(H), dated 18.12.1996. In pursuance of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, the 3rd respondent requested the 4th respondent to carry out the eviction of the 5th respondent from the said site. Aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent filed an appeal before the District Collector, West Godavari at Eluru-1st respondent herein and the District Collector, on the ground that no notice was given to the 5th respondent, set aside the order dated 18.12.1996 passed by the 2nd respondent and remanded the matter to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, vide proceedings No.D.Dis.E2/165/97, dated 11.1.2000. After issuing notices to all the authorities concerned, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order dated 27.09.2003. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Lakshsminarayana Reddy, strenuously contended that as many as seven people including the 5th respondent have occupied the road margins and constructed thatched houses therein and the said houses are causing obstruction to the way of the pipeline connected to the residential house of the petitioner, the 4th respondent has not followed the orders issued by the 2nd respondent earlier and the revenue officials did not follow the order dated 25.06.1077 passed by ____________ in O.S.No.39 of 1984 whereunder permanent injunction was granted against 1st and 2nd defendants not to allow anybody including the 3rd defendant to erect any building or construction in the road margin in the place of shed, inspite of seven people were allowed to occupy the road margin and constructed small huts and the 5th respondent is one of the persons allowed to do so. On remand, the Sub Collector, Narsapur by his proceedings dated 27.09.2003 passed an order stating that by adverting pipeline supplying water to the house of the petitioner, the main grievance of the petitioner is redressed permanently. The house sites allotted to the 5th respondent and six others will not cause any obstruction to the petitioner to have free access to his house. Further, the petitioner cannot demur the fact of anybody living in the Government land, for his personal benefit. Since the main grievance of the petitioner is redressed, no further action is called for. The 5th respondent ___________from the house site allotted to her in T.S.No.89 of Palakol town. Further, it was observed that at the time of inspection, the persons living in seven houses have submitted representations stating that they will bear the expenditure for diversion of the water pipeline connected to the house of the petitioner from the existing pipeline (by laying another pipeline from the site in front of the houses). When contacted, the Municipal commissioner, Palakol, in this regard, has submitted a letter dated 26.09.2000 stating that action was initiated to shift the public tap connection from the house of the petitioner __________existing 50 mm PVC pipeline to new 100 mm PVC pipeline which is located opposed to the thatched houses situated in the 1st ward of Lajapatiraypet. All these things would indicate that the only grievance of the petitioner was that the seven houses constructed on the road margin is the Government land and they are causing obstruction to the water pipeline connected to his house. This was already redressed and once it is done, if the petitioner has any other objection, he should seek for eviction of the people who were allotted the Government land on flimsy grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the 5th respondent as well as others are causing nuisance in the area and creating a dirty atmosphere. This cannot be gone into any proceedings of this nature. It is always open for the petitioner to work out his remedy as available under law, if he is aggrieved by any problem of pollution or any other nuisance i.e. sound and dust or any other kind of pollution created by the people around him. Hence, I am of the opinion that the writ petition is filed to wreck vengeance against the poor people who have been allotted small house sites on the road margin by the Government. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.