THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.Nos.22633 and 23861of 2006 COMMON ORDER: Common questions of fact and law arise in these two Writ Petitions, hence, both the Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. These Writ Petitions have been filed to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to dispossess/demolish the buildings constructed by them on the subject land without following due process of law, as illegal. The petitioners purchased house sites situated in Sy.No.93 of Thattiannaram Village, Hayatnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District through registered sale deeds. The said sites are located in the lay out sanctioned by the concerned authority. The petitioners, after obtaining permissions, have constructed houses and have been residing in the said houses. The respondents 2 and 3, however, started interfering with their possession and made an attempt on 25-10-2006 to demolish the houses on the pretext that the land lies within the FTL area of uracheruvu tank. The petitioners approached the respondents on 31-10-2006 and 05-11-2006 and apprised the respondents the fact that they are the lawful owners of their respective plots and constructed houses only after due permission accorded by the concerned authorities and requested the respondents not to go ahead with the proposal to demolish the houses. As the respondents 2 and 3 were bent upon carrying out the demolitions, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions for the aforesaid relief. Heard Sri M.A.Ashfaq Mohiuddin and Sri K.Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned standing counsel for ZPPS & MPPS; learned Government Pleader for I & CAD and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners have placed abundant material before this Court to show their ownership and possession of the sites. The said material consists of the lay out sanctioned by the then Gram Panchayat; permissions granted for construction of the houses; and the registered sale deeds. The said material evidently establishes that the petitioners have been in occupation and enjoyment as the lawful owners. The 2nd Respondent, however, has filed a counter stating that the subject land is shikam land lying with the FTL area of the tank, therefore, no construction is permissible in the tank bed land. Even while saying so, in the counter-affidavit he admits that the subject land is a patta land and the same can be used only for cultivation but not for construction. Thus, on a consideration of the entire material and the statement of the 2nd Respondent to the said effect, it cannot be said that the petitioners prima facie have no right in respect of the subject land. That being so, the respondents are not entitled to interfere or disturb the possession of the petitioners forcibly. It is well settled that even an encroacher is not liable to be removed except in accordance with law. The respondents are, therefore, not justified in seeking to demolish the houses of the petitioners or otherwise interfere with their possession except by initiating action prescribed by law. For the aforesaid reasons, these Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 18th February, 2011. skmr