IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20288 of 2006 Between: 1 Scheduled Castes House Patta Seekers Union, Vijayawada, represented by its Convener K.Vijay Kumar. 2 Y.Surya Prakash Rao, s/o Jakriah, r/o Badavapeta, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., represented by Prl.Secretary, Municipal Administration Urban Development Department, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, represented by its Commissioner. 3 The Collector & District Magistrate, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada Urban, Vijayawada. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus holding that the Memo No.1604/K2/2005, dt.5-10- 2005 issued by the respondent No.1 as discriminatory, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to ﬁnalise the regularization of the encroachment of the members of the petitioner's association whose list is prepared and approved by the respondent No.2 in terms of either G.O.Ms.No.491, Revenue Department dt.1-4-1965 or G.O.Ms.No.515/Rev. dt.19-4-2003 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.MARIE DESAI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MS. G.JHANSI, STANDING COUNSEL. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3&4: GP FOR REVENUE. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Scheduled Castes House Patta Seekers Union, Vijayawada, represented by its Convener K.Vijay Kumar with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus holding that Memo.No.1604/K2/2005, dated 05.10.2005 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Hyderabad-1st respondent is illegal and unconstitutional. 2. The 1st petitioner is a Union of members of scheduled castes. The members of the 1st petitioner-Union occupied the government land and put up constructions. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.491 Revenue Department, dated 01.04.1965 whereunder the government accepted the recommendations of the Board of Revenue to transfer the house plots in favour of old encroachers on the land in question at the rate of Rs.1/- per sq. yard. The text of the said G.O. reads as hereunder: “In the circumstances reported, the Government accept the recommendations of the Board of Revenue in its reference third read above, and direct that the land measuring Ac.6.78 cents (Hill Poramboke) vested in Municipality in N.T.S.No.33, Block No.2, Ward No.11 of Badava, Vijayawada Town and Taluk, Krishna District, be transferred in favour of the old encroachers on the land in question at the rate of Rs.1/- per sq. yard, subject to the special condition that the purchasers or their heirs, shall not dispose of the land to other for a period of fifteen years from the date of transfer. The amount realized from the sale of land referred to in para one above shall be credited to Government.” 155 persons belonging to the 1st petitioner-Union were in occupation of the land. 96 persons availed the beneﬁt under the said G.O. and accordingly, pattas were granted in their favour. About 59 persons could not avail the beneﬁt of the said G.O. for various reasons. They approached the respondents for grant of pattas. Since the respondents insisted for payment of the amount as per G.O.Ms.No.1601 Revenue (Asn.I) Department, dated 29.08.2005, the petitioners approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndi a. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to extract para.4 of the writ affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “4. The concerned department provided with minimum required facilities but did not sanction house pattas to them. Since there will be no security for the dwellers without having patta to the residential area under their occupation, all these people have approached the municipal corporation as well as revenue authorities for granting house pattas. Upon their requests a lay out was prepared with respect to the area in the year 1964 and about 96 persons were granted pattas in terms of G.O.Ms.No.491 Revenue Department, dated 01.04.1965. (Annexure-I). In the said GO, the land measuring 6 acres 78 cents (Hill Porambok) vested in the village in NTSR.No.33, Block 2, Badava was directed to be transferred in favour of the old encroachers on the land in question @ Rs.1/- per square yard subject to the special condition that purchasers or the heirs shall not dispose oﬀ the land to others for a period of 15 years from the date of transfer. In terms of the said GO, 96 persons were granted Pattas in the year 1964 itself, after collecting amount @ Rs.1/- per square yard against the extent which is under their occupation. Out of 155 occupants, only 96 persons were granted pattas and 59 persons left out who come under same category, without any reason.” 3. 2nd respondent ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. Gulzar N., Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that representations received from the left over of the said encroachers came to be referred to the government for consideration for alienation of the land in their favour at the rate of 72/- per square yard. As per the terms and conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.508 Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 20.10.1995, the duration of occupation of the persons has to be determined and those persons were only granted pattas by collecting Rs.750/- per square yard. There are several disputes in determining the ownership of the plots in 16 cases along with other fair cases and the same was already referred to the Government. The Government issued G.O. formulating a scheme for such regularization and the beneﬁciaries should have availed of such beneﬁts within the stipulated period duly fulfilling the conditions. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the 1st respondent; and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that some of the members of the 1st petitioner-Union could not avail the beneﬁt of G.O.Ms.No.491 Revenue Department, dated 01.04.1965 for various reasons and therefore, they ﬁled applications for allotment of pattas in their favour on payment of the rate ﬁxed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.491 Revenue Department, dated 01.04.1965. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, left over members of the 1st petitioner-Union are entitled for allotment of pattas at the rate ﬁxed in G.O.Ms.No.491 Revenue Department, dated 01.04.1965. 6. Whereas, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Corporation submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1601 Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 29.08.2005, which is made applicable to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation-2nd respondent under Memo.No.1604/K2/2005, dated 05.10.2005, and therefore, the persons in occupation have to make individual applications to examine their case for issuance of pattas. 7. I have gone through the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition. The names of the 59 persons, who claimed to have not availed the beneﬁt under G.O.Ms.No.491 Revenue Department, dated 01.04.1965, do not ﬁnd place in the writ aﬃdavit. Therefore, there cannot be any eﬀective direction to the respondents to consider the cases of those 59 persons. There is also a dispute with regard to the number of persons who failed to avail the beneﬁt under G.O.Ms.No.491 Revenue Department, dated 01.04.1965. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the members of the 1st petitioner-Union to submit applications individually to the 2nd respondent-Corporation for regularization of their occupation with necessary proof and thereupon the 2nd respondent-Corporation shall consider their applications in accordance with the G.Os. in operation as on this day. This exercise shall be completed within 8 (eight) weeks from the date of submission of individual applications by the members of the 1st petitioner-Union. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:06th August, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}