THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6589 of 2002 Dated:30.09.2010 Between: M.Madhava Reddy, And others. ….Petitioners And The Govt.of A.P., And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.6589 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are sons of one Narasimha Reddy of Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Petitioner No.4 is the tenant of the premises owned by them. They filed the instant writ petition alleging that the respondents demolished the structures on their property without due process of law and in violation of the orders of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.34284 of 1999, dated 28.01.2000. The petition allegations are as follows. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are members of Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited which purchased the land admeasuring Acs.7.28 guntas in Survey No.194/10, Patigadda, from Habeeb Nawaz Jung under agreement of sale dated 06.01.1982. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were allotted plot Nos.3, 4 and 5 admeasuring 350 square yards and 340 square yards respectively. The brothers of the first petitioner constructed shed, which was assessed to property tax by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (MCH) for their premises bearing No.1-8-449/2/1. The shed was leased out to two persons for running a motor garage for a period of five years. They applied for regularization to MCH, in vain. They filed W.P.No.3405 of 2001, which was dismissed by this Court on 07.03.2001. The structures raised by the petitioners were demolished. The Writ Appeal filed by the petitioners, being W.A.No.501 of 2001, was allowed, and the matter was remitted to MCH. The petitioners allege that as advised by MCH, they restored the assets. In the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (the ULC Act), the owner of the land was declared surplus landholder to an extent of 7574.65 square metres. The owner filed W.P.No.27146 of 1999 and obtained order of stay of dispossession in W.P.M.P.No.34284 of 1999 on 28.01.2000. In the meanwhile, petitioners 1 to 3 leased the property to petitioner No.4 who started Pariwar Function Plaza. On 26.11.2001 respondent Nos.4 to 12 came with proclainer and threatened to demolish the structures in spite of showing the orders passed by various authorities. On the next day again they came with Police and started demolishing the structures in spite of protests. No notice was issued to the petitioners, and therefore, their action is illegal. Respondent No.3, the Joint Collector, who is arrayed in his personal capacity has filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made against him. He also affirmed that he is not personally aware of the allegations made by the petitioners in paragraphs 4 to 14 and that the petitioners never met him. In the common counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, it is stated as follows. The land admeasuring Acs.6.26 guntas in survey No.194/10 of Begumpet Village is Paigah (inam) land. The lands in survey Nos.194/1 to 194/12 were the subject matter of W.P.No.199 of 1998 which was filed by the legal heirs of Vicar-ul-Umra against the orders of the Inams Tribunal dated 25.10.1997. This Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Inams Tribunal. The vendor of the petitioners does not have a clear title, and therefore, he could not have conferred any title on the petitioners. Petitioners are not in physical possession of the suit land. The petitioners are habitual land grabbers. They unauthorisedly constructed on the land, which vested in the Government under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (Abolition of Inams Act). When the proceedings under ULC Act were pending at the instance of the owner, the Special Officer could not have granted permission under Section 26 of the ULC Act. The petitioners are not at all in possession. Therefore, the question of giving notice to them does not arise. The petitioners are also not entitled for any damages. Though the counter affidavits are filed long back, no reply affidavits are filed by the petitioners. Therefore, the denials in the counter affidavits and other averments made by the respondents are not seriously demurred. Even according to the petitioners they allegedly purchased the property from Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited, which did not execute sale deeds. This Court fails to understand as to how the petitioners could have allowed either setting up of motor garage and later Pariwar Function Plaza by the fourth respondent. Secondly, when the land is regulated by the Abolition of Inams Act, the land absolutely vests in the State unless and until Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC) is issued in favour of inamdar/protected tenant or an occupant. It is nobody’s case that such ORC is issued in favour of the vendor of the Kakatiya Cooperative Housing Society Limited. From this an inference can be drawn that the land on which the constructions were raised unauthorisedly are certainly lands belonging to the Government, and the petitioners have no right to make any constructions. But, the petitioners have produced some photographs to show the presence of Pariwar Function Plaza. Though this cannot be correlated to land in survey No.194/10 of Patigadda, Begumpet, the allegation of possession cannot be ruled out. Be it noted that the Revenue Divisional Officer in his counter affidavit also alleged that petitioners 1 to 3 are land grabbers, and they unauthorisedly made constructions. In view of the same, whether or not the person is land grabber or an encroacher or unauthorisedly in occupation of the Government land, which vests in the Government by virtue of Abolition of Inams Act, all such persons can be evicted only by following principles of natural justice. There is not even a whisper in the counter affidavit that such notice was issued to the petitioners. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the competent revenue authority to issue notice to the petitioners and pass necessary orders for removal of encroachments within period of two months. Pending such action, the petitioners shall not make any further construction nor create third party rights. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 30.09.2010 vs