THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITOIN NO.18677 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners, 14 in number, are all encroachers on Government land in whose favour the encroachments were regularised, and they were assigned house site pattas. Having been successful in securing house sites and, after they had constructed houses thereupon, the petitioners have now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to assign house sites in favour of respondents 5 to 12 (all of whom are landless poor belong to weaker sections) as arbitrary and illegal. The entire premise on which the Writ Petition is based is that there are certain open places adjoining Plot No.7 Sy Nos.107 and 105/7 of Marripalem village, Visakhapatnam which has been earmarked for public purpose; and encroachments should be prevented thereupon including by respondents 4 to 12. The writ affidavit is silent whether or not the house sites assigned in favour of the petitioners is in a sanctioned lay out under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act or the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 as extended to Visakhapatnam by the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act. Except to state that the site adjoining Plot No.7 is earmarked for public purpose, the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is silent regarding the basis on which the petitioners so assert. The moral high ground which the petitioners have taken of preventing illegal encroachments on open sites is evidently a camouflage for the petitioners themselves are land encroachers whose encroachments were regularised and house sites assigned in their favour. By way of an interlocutory order, the petitioners have succeeded in ensuring that the case of respondents 5 to 12 for assignment of house sites is not even been considered. Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that he has a copy of a plan. On being asked as to who prepared the plan; and whether the plan is of a sanctioned lay out; Learned Counsel for the petitioner would express ignorance. The fact remains that a vacate stay petition has been filed as early as April, 2010 and, though more than a year and half has since elapsed, no reply affidavit has been filed thereto till date. I see no reason, therefore, to entertain a submission made across the bar that these plots have been earmarked as open space in a sanctioned lay out when the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is silent in this regard. It is evident that the Writ Petition, as filed, is an abuse of process of Court, and the petitioners endeavour is only to ensure that respondents 5 to 12 are not even considered for assignment of house site pattas. While such Writ Petitions may well necessitate imposition of exemplary costs, considering the fact the petitioners themselves are landless poor, and belong to weaker sections, I do not consider it appropriate to impose costs upon them. The Writ Petition is, however, dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 30.11.2011 MRKR