IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33181 of 2010 Between: Smt. Nirudi Laxmi and others. … Petitioners And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R. District and another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P. Krishna Reddy for Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33181 of 2010 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in contemplating to evict the petitioners from their plots/houses admeasuring 80 square yards each situated at Anthaipally Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 not to evict them except in accordance with law. I have heard Sri P. Krishna Reddy representing Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for the respondents. A layout was prepared in respect of 1003 plots over an extent of Ac.29.29 guntas, which was treated as the gap area of Government land of Anthaipally Village and pattas were distributed to 668 beneficiaries besides preparing pattas for distribution in favour of 340 beneficiaries in the year 2003. One person by name M. Madan Mohan Reddy approached the A.P. Lokayuktha with complaint, dated 02.08.2010, stating that his land was used for preparing the layout and distribution of pattas. The Lokayuktha, by its order, directed that an extent of Ac.2.04 guntas in Sy.No.133 has to be allotted to the complainant and his family and an extent of Ac.2.04 guntas in Sy.No.108, which is a patta land of the complainant, has to be taken over from him. The Government has decided to handover an extent of Ac.13.36 guntas in Sy.No.108 and Ac.2.04 guntas in Sy.No.133 to the complainant duly cancelling the house site pattas issued over the land in Sy.No.108. Accordingly, proceedings, dated 18.02.2010, were issued by the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy, East Division, wherein it is inter alia stated that as per the report, dated ----10.2009 of the Tahsildar, Shamirpet, two persons by name Korvi Padma, W/o. Sathaiah, who was allotted plot No.309 and Kavitha, W/o. Ramulu, who was allotted plot No.523, constructed pucca houses and that during the negotiations held by the Special Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy, East Division with pattadars of Sy.No.108, the latter have expressed that they are ready to pay some compensation to the owners of the building. The Deputy Collector observed that additional patta certificates will be issued to them on their eviction from the present houses. The said decision of the Government is questioned in this Writ Petition. The grievance of the petitioners is two fold, namely; that no individual notices have been issued to them before cancelling the pattas and that the respondents have not properly considered the request of Sri M. Madan Mohan Reddy for allotment of alternative land. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed before the Court a copy of public notice, dated 28.10.2010, wherein the Tahsildar, Shamirpet Mandal, invited applications from all those persons, who were affected by cancellation of pattas for grant of individual house sites in terms of G.O.Ms.No.493, dated 28.04.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far his clients have not made any applications and that many of the petitioners have raised constructions and their displacement from the sites for which they were granted pattas will cause huge financial loss to them. The learned Assistant Government Pleader denied existence of houses except in case of petitioner No.1. She further stated that in respect of petitioner Nos. 11 and 16, only basements were raised and that no other petitioner has either raised any construction or is in physical possession of the plots allotted to them. Since individual notices are not issued to the petitioners, it would be appropriate that they are permitted to make their representations. Before taking over the physical possession of the plots allotted to the petitioners, the respondents shall consider the representations of the petitioners. The respondents, on the appropriate applications made by the petitioners, shall allot alternative plots to them. If the petitioners are able to prove that they have raised constructions, the respondents shall value the structures and pay suitable compensation therefor before the physical possession of the plots is taken by them. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, WPMP.No.42119 of 2010 and WVMP.No.1041of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.01.2012 ES