IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10817 of 2005 Between: M. Dora Babu, S/o. Peddulu, R/o. Urdallapalem Attili Mandal, W.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, W.G.District. Eluru. 2 the Joint Collector, Eluru, W.G.District. 3 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kovvur, W.G.District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Attili, W.G.District. 5 D. Seethamahalakshmi, W/o. Bhagavan, R/o. Urdallapalem, Attili Mandal, W.G.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 impugned action of the respondents 2 to 4 herein in allowing the 5th respondent to occupy the Government Land besides the statue of Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Constructed by the petitioner and other Scheduled Caste Community people in Urdallapalem Village, Attili Mandal, W.G.District and Further action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action for removal of the illegal construction made by the 5th respondent in the land belonging to the Government as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. The petitioner’s complaint is that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have failed to take any action against the fifth respondent for illegal occupation in the government land besides the statue of B.R. Ambedkar constructed by the petitioner and other Scheduled Caste people in Urdallapalem village, Attili Mandal, West Godavari district. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner and others belonging to the Scheduled Caste community have unlawfully and forcibly occupied government property on the R & B Road margin adjacent to the State highway from Marteir to Aswaraopet and erected a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar without any permission or entitlement. The fifth respondent similarly encroached the government land adjacent to this statue also on the R&B margin with a view to establishing a small thatched hotel. The illegal conduct of the petitioner and the fifth respondent have brought about a law and order problem in the village. Criminal cases have been booked against the petitioner and other members of the community and also against the fifth respondent. By initiating the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, the fifth respondent was evicted after issuance of a final notice on 27-05-2005. However the fifth respondent reoccupied and unauthorizedly encroached the same property and is in the process of establishing a hotel. In the circumstances the first respondent is being addressed to initiate appropriate steps for permanently evicting the fifth respondent from the road margin. The counter categorically asserts that the constructions made by the fifth respondent as well as statue put up by the petitioner and others on the road margin is illegal, unauthorized and inconvenient to the vehicular traffic on the State high way. This counter affidavit has been filed on 10-11-2005. The petitioner has not filed any subsequent pleading denying the allegations or averments in the counter affidavit as to the illegal occupation of government land and erection of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar statue on such encroached land. The petitioner has not pleaded in the writ petition the necessary facts of having encroached the government land and put up a statue unauthorizedly thereat. Since the petitioner has not denied the allegations in the counter affidavit regarding the petitioner’s unauthorized activity, the petitioner must be considered to have suppressed the material facts. In any event, it is not open to one encroacher to complain about another’s encroachment on public property. The writ petition is misconceived and since it is filed without disclosing the material facts, is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousands only) payable by the petitioner to the first respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-04-2008 Pvks/*