IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21998 of 2000 Between: P. Kamalamma, W/o. Ranganatham, H.No. 13-107, L.B.Nagar, Muthyalareddi Palli, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.JAGAPATHI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in threatening to demolish the petitioner’s dwelling house bearing Door No.13/107 situated in Survey No.303/1, L.B.Nagar, Muthyalareddipalli, Tirupathi (Urban) Mandal, Tirupathi, as arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to assign the said land to her to the extent of dwelling house or alternatively, regularise her occupation over the said land on payment of market value prevailing on the date of construction of the said house. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner encroached into land admeasuring 194 sq.yards, which admittedly belongs to the Government, and constructed a dwelling house thereon. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.508, Revenue (ASN-I) Department, dated 20.10.1995 providing for regularisation of the illegal occupation of the lands in urban areas, on which, houses were constructed prior to 31.03.1990. In pursuance of the said G.O., the petitioner applied for regularisation of her unauthorized occupation. After considering the said application, respondent No.3 issued notice, dated 10.04.1999 whereby he called upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,500/- @ Rs.750/- per sq.yard within 30 days. She claimed that she and other similarly situated persons approached respondent No.2 and requested for re- consideration and that respondent No.2 accordingly, addressed letter, dated 29.05.1999 to respondent No.1 to accord permission to ﬁx the basic value as on 31.03.1990 instead of 20.10.1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that even before respondent No.1 gave it’s clariﬁcation, respondent No.3 is insisting on payment with the threat of coercive action. Respondent No.3 ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit, in which, it is inter alia stated that considering the fact that several Government lands were in occupation of unauthorized occupants, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.508, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 20.10.1995 for regularisation of encroachments in townships in respect of unobjectionable porambokes with certain conditions which include that a Committee under the Chairmanship of Collector and Members consisting of Joint Collector, Municipal Commissioner, Vice-Chairman, TUDA and District Revenue Oﬃcer, was authorized to consider the applications ﬁled by the unauthroised occupants in the prescribed format for regularisation and that as per the said G.O., regularisation was provided for in respect of three categories. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.940, dated 24.11.1998 was issued modifying G.O.Ms.No.508 and later, G.O.Ms.No.972, dated 04.12.1998 was issued further liberalizing the conditions contained in G.O.Ms.Nos.508 and 940. Under the said G.O., the persons whose total family income was less than Rs.11,000/- per annum and who occupied between 100 and 120 sq.yards, are entitled for regularisation free of cost; the persons with a total family income of Rs.11,000/- per annum occupying more than 100 to 120 sq.yards are entitled for regularisation free of cost up to the extent of 100 or 120 sq.yards and in respect of the excess area, the same should be regularized on payment of market value and the persons with the total family income exceeding Rs.11,000/- per annum, are entitled for regularisation of the entire extent of land in their occupation only on payment of market value. It is further stated that all the applications including the petitioner’s application were placed before the Committee, which has disposed of the same directing the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tirupathi to take appropriate action and communicated vide proceedings, dated 03.03.1999 of the District Collector and that in pursuance of the directions of the Committee, 9 house-site pattas in Survey No.303/1 of Tirupathi were issued free of cost and 242 families were issued notices to pay the market value in terms of the above- mentioned G.Os for regularisation of encroachments, as they are found to be above poverty line. It is further stated that the petitioner was also one of the persons to whom such a notice was issued on 27.03.1999 to pay the market value of Rs.1,05,000/- for the land of an extent of 134 sq.yards in Survey No.303/1 of Tirupathi, on which, she constructed a house bearing Door No.13-107, @ Rs.750/- per sq.yard, as per the basic value register maintained by the Oﬃce of the Sub- Registrar, Tirupathi as on 20.10.1995 in terms of the said G.Os. It is further stated that the petitioner’s husband is an employee in TTD and his annual income is Rs.1,08,000/- and thereby, she is not eligible for regularisation free of cost. By the impugned notice, respondent No.3 informed the petitioner that her encroachment of land of an extent of 134 sq.yards in Survey No.303/1 of Tirupathi was regularized in accordance with the conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.508, dated 20.10.1985 read with G.O.Ms.No.972, dated 04.12.1998 and directed her to pay a total sum of Rs.1,00,500/- @ Rs.750/- per sq.yard. It is further stated that if the total amount is paid within a period of 30 days, 25% reduction will be given, which comes to Rs.25,125/-. It is also stated that while conveyance deed will be executed on receipt of the said payment, failure to remit the market value will entail the petitioner’s eviction. Respondent No.2 addressed letter, dated 29.05.1999 to the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, Andhra Pradesh, through the Chief Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh, wherein it is mentioned that following the above mentioned G.Os, number of applications for regularisation were disposed of; that after receipt of notices issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tirupathi, the people began agitating against ﬁxation of market value as on 20.10.1995, instead of 31.03.1990, which was the date on which the constructions should have been made for the purpose of regularisation and he, therefore, requested to give necessary clariﬁcation with regard to ﬁxation of market value by taking 31.03.1990 as the relevant date. In a society governed by rule of law, encroachment of public properties by private persons is abhorrent. The primitive concept “might is right” has given way to social order where every citizen is bound by rule of law. Among those who occupy the public properties, not only there are landless poor persons, who have no shelter of their own, but also those who indulge in such activities out of greed and to unduly enrich themselves. In the considered opinion of this Court, there can be no justiﬁcation for the State to allow the persons falling under the second category to usurp public properties without any semblance of right. By allowing to do so, albeit on condition of payment of certain monies, the State is virtually paying premium on lawlessness. Since the validity of the above G.Os is not in question, I do not propose to delve further into this aspect. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner, who is an unauthorized occupant of the Government land, by the aforementioned G.Os, is permitted to seek regularisation subject to the conditions contained therein. The petitioner has not questioned the validity of any of those G.Os., and had herself applied for regularisation in terms of the said G.Os. It is not the case of the petitioner that the amount demanded by respondent No.3 as a condition for regularisation is contrary to any of those conditions. Therefore, the petitioner, who seeks beneﬁt under the said G.Os, has a corresponding obligation to comply with each and every condition contained therein. The petitioner cannot take shelter under the proceedings of respondent No.2 whereby he sought for clariﬁcation from the Government as to the date on which the market value has to be assessed. If eventually, the Government gives a clariﬁcation in favour of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, they may claim that beneﬁt. But, in the guise of respondent No.1 not responding to the clariﬁcation sought for by respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot be permitted to withhold the amount, which is demanded by respondent No.3 in terms of the above mentioned G.Os, because, the petitioner cannot have best of both worlds by holding the properties unauthorisedly on the one hand and seeking regularisation under the Government Orders without making payments prescribed therein, on the other. In this view of the matter, I do not ﬁnd any illegality in the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 15.11.2000 is vacated, WPMP.No.27967 of 2000 is dismissed and WVMP.No.3148 of 2001 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st JULY, 2008. Note: L.R.Copy be marked. kvni