IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH FIRST DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11227 of 2010 Between: Narava Sanyasamma … Petitioner And The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Settlement) East Cost Railway, Waltair, Visakhapatnam & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam Counsel for the respondents: Sri Bhaskar SC for Railways This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.11227 of 2010 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash order dated 15.03.2010 in A.S.No.258 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam. I have heard Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bhaskar, learned Standing counsel for the East Cost Railways. The petitioner has been in occupation of land admeasuring 2193 square feet belonging to the railways from the year 1975 under a licence granted to her by the said railways. When the petitioner was sought to be evicted, she filed O.S.No.2523 of 1997 in the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed on the short ground that the respondents cannot evict the petitioner without following due process of law. A.S.No.177 of 2001 filed by the respondents against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam on 30.06.2004. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by respondent No.2 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) and by order dated 18.08.2008, directed the petitioner’s eviction. The said order was questioned in A.S.No.258 of 2008 in the Court of the District Judge, Visakhaptanam, which, as noted above, was dismissed under the impugned judgment. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while there is no dispute about the fact that the land in question belongs to respondent No.1, the petitioner will be deprived of her livelihood, if she is evicted. In my considered opinion, when there is no dispute about the fact that the premises in question is a public premises under the provisions of the Act and the period of licence has expired long back, the petitioner is not entitled to remain in possession. Realizing that the petitioner failed to raise any legal question to persuade this Court to reverse the orders passed by the primary and the appellate fora, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested for granting reasonable time to the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the premises to the respondents. The learned Standing counsel submitted that according to his oral instructions, the petitioner has already been evicted. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the orders impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, if the petitioner is not physically evicted as on today, she shall be permitted to remain in possession of the premises in question for a period of three months from today. At the end of the three months’ period, the petitioner shall handover possession of the premises to the respondents. If the petitioner failed to do so, the respondents are entitled to recover possession from her. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.14292 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 31.05.2010 ES