IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14231 of 2008 Between: 1 SiramSudhakar S/o.Chandrasekharao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 2 Pinjala Mallikarjuna Rao S/o.Subba Rao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 3 Sajja Balagangadhara rao S/o. Veeranagulu R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 4 Jagabathina Manjusha D/o.Balasubramanyam R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 5 Sajja Vijaya W/o.Nagarjuna R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 6 Pinjala Leelakumari W/o.Mallikarjuna Rao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 7 Ponnuri Venkata Laxmi W/o.Sai R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 8 Siram Radharani W/o.Sridhar R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 9 Pinjala Subramanyam S/o.Mallikarjuna Rao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 10 Boddu Kotaiah S/o.Kotesu R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 11 Satram Sunitha W/o.Srinivasa Rao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 12 Siram Padmaja W/o.Sudhakar R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 13 Sajja Bramaramba W/o.Balagangadhara Rao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 14 Sajja Ramesh S/oo.Balagangadhara Rao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 15 Pinjala Subba Rao S/o.Mallikarjuna Rao R/o.Nayanipalli Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Govt of AP., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer,Ongole,Prakasam District 4 The Tahsildar, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District 5 The Asst.Director (Handlooms) Ongole,Prakasam District 6 The General Manager, Rajiv Swagruha Scheme, Prakasam Bhavan,Ongole, Prakasam District .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ order or direction more fully in thenature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents ini nterfering with possession and forcibly trying to dispossess petitioners from small extents of dry land in S.No.604 part, 503 part,497/1 500/1, 498 part,499 part, 504,508,509,507,497/2,500,501,535, 506, 533,500, 534,504, 536 532, 538, 497, of Nayanapalli village, Vetapalem Mandal Prakasam District is illegal, improper arbitrary,besides being opposed to principles of natural justice and violation of Articel 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of small extents of lands of the petitoner in smaal extents of dry land in S.No.604 part, 503 part,497/1 500/1, 498 part,499 part, 504,508,509,507,497/2,500,501,535, 506, 533,500, 534,504, 536 532, 538, 497, of Nayanapalli village, Vetapalem Mandal Prakasam District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the case Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce. The fifteen petitioners seek a declaration that the respondents not interfere with their possession of small extents of dry land in Sy.Nos. 604 part, 503 part, 497/1, 500/1, 498 part, 499 part, 504, 508, 509, 508, 497/2, 500, 501, 535, 506, 533, 500, 534, 504, 536, 532, 538 and 497 of Nayanapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District nor should dispossess them without following the due process of law. The petitioners, through their ancestors, claim to be in possession of small extents of Government dry lands of an extent of Ac.2-00 each since long. They also assert to have been issued D- Form pattas in the year 1988 by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem Mandal and to have been granted pattas after collecting market values of the land. They also claim to have grown crops, to have expended labour for the development of the land and to have put it to agricultural purpose. The writ petition is filed alleging that the revenue authorities wanted to allot these lands already assigned to the petitioners for a Textile park. The 5th respondent is alleged to have inspected the petitioners land and to have threatened them to vacate. The petitioners further allege that some of the lands are sought to be assigned for the beneficiaries under the Rajeev Gruhakalpa Scheme. In the circumstances, the writ petition, in the nature of a pre-emptive writ petition has been filed. Respondents 4 and 5 have filed separate counter-affidavits. In the context of the allegations however, the counter of the 4th respondent assumes significance and is referred to. The 4th respondent’s counter states that an extent of 156-43 cents in Sy.No.485 etc., of Nayunipalli village of Vetapalem Mandal was initially assigned to Nayunipalli depressed classes (Nimnajathula) Tenants Cooperative Society on 12-11-1932. On 28-12-2002 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem cancelled the assignment and assumed the land for violation by the then beneficiaries of the conditions of assignment. A writ petition against the cancellation was filed by way of W.P.No. 3183 of 2003, which was disposed of on 24-2- 2003 directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole to dispose of the appeal within eight weeks. By proceedings dated 24-5-2004, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole dismissed the appeal of the Nayunkipalli depressed classes (Nimnajathula) Tenants Cooperative Society and confirmed the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem dated 28-12-2002. Out of the total extent of Ac.156-43 cents, an extent of Ac.22-36 cents was acquired for formation of straight cut and an extent of Ac.50- 00 was handed over to the 5th respondent for construction of a Textile Park on 23-7-2005. Thereafter another extent of Ac.35-01 cents in Sy.No.506 part etc., was handed over to the Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Rajeev Swagruha Cooperative Society Limited, Nellore for construction of houses, on 25-10-2007. The counter- affidavit of the 4th respondent (at page 4) sets out the extents of land in specified survey numbers already handed over to the Textile Park and the Rajeev Gruhakalpa Scheme and lands yet to be handed over. As per the statement, the lands claimed to be in the possession of the petitioners is shown in the counter-affidavit as lands yet to be handed over to the Textile Park or the Rajeev Gruhakalpa Scheme, as the case may be. The counter-affidavit also asserts that no D-Form pattas were granted to the petitioners in the year 1988 by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem and on verification from the D.K. Register no such entries regarding assignments were found. The petitioners are however strident in the claim that they have been granted D-Form pattas by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem in 1988. The respondents are also equally categorial that no such pattas were granted. There is thus presented an essential dispute of fact which ought to be determined in an appropriate proceedings before the civil court of competent jurisdiction by a properly presented plaint where the issue of validity of the pattas will be gone into by application of due process of the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure and on consideration by expert evidence, if needed. The immediate grievance of the petitioners, however, is that they are sought to be evicted by the respondents without following the due process of law despite their being occupants of Government lands for long duration. While the petitioners claim of having been issued pattas may be disputed, the respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioners are in occupation of these lands but assert that the petitioners are encroachers. It is settled law that even encroachers could be evicted but only after following the due process of law. In the facts and circumstances adverted to above and on the analysis above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the possession of the lands in Nayunipalli village, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District without following the due process of law. As and when a notice of eviction is issued to the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to put- forth such defenses as they deem fit to resist the process of eviction and the respondents would be bound to consider those objections and record reasons for passing final orders for eviction. If such orders are passed, the petitioners may pursue appropriate remedies thereagainst. No costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23rd April, 2009. GRR