IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 4933 of 2002 BETWEEN: 1 K. Krishna Veni, W/o. Narayana Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 E. Krishna Veni, W/o. Srinivasa Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 G. Durgamma, W/o. Ramu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 N. Annapurna, W/o. Sanyasi, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 5 P. Uma, W/o. Kannam Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 6 G. Durgamma, W/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 7 M. Seethamma, W/o. Appala Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 8 R. Narayanamma, W/o. Narayana Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 9 K. Laxmi, W/o. Sathyanarayana Reddy, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 10 Shaik Jainabhi, W/o. Dadaguda, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 11 B. Laxmi, W/o. Ramulu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 12 N. Laxmi Kanthamma, W/o. Eswara Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 13 L. Annapurna, W/o. Durga Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 14 M. Venkayamma, W/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 15 L. Appala Suri, W/o. Laxmi Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 16 Karanam Malleswari, W/o. Laxmaiah, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 17 S. Laxmi, W/o. Mahalaxmi Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 18 C. Nelamma, W/o. Taviti Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 19 V. Appamma, W/o. Ram Murthy, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 20 N. Narayanamma, W/o. Appa Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 21 K. Parvathi, W/o. Narasimhulu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 22 S. Appayamma, W/o. Narayan, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 23 D. Suramma, W/o. Satyama, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 24 Shaik Mymujni, W/o. Meeravali, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 25 Shaik Ameenabhi, W/o. Mastanvali, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 26 R. Savitri, W/o/ Simhadri, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 27 G. Bhavani, W/o. Eswara Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 28 K. Gouramma, W/o. Sree Ramulu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 29 P. Sanyasi Appadu, S/o. P. Sanyasi, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 30 M. Narayanamma, W/o. Rama Rao, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 31 V. Narasamma, W/o. Simhachalam, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 32 P. Suramma, W/o. Suryanarayana, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 33 M. Suramma, W/o. Sanyasi Appala Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 34 R. Kanthamma, W/o. Satyam, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 35 K. Kanthamma, W/o. Nellakantam, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 36 J. Sangamma, W/o. Yerram Naidu, R/o. Machavaram, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada. 2 The Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, 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 writ or direction particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to evict the petitioners from the houses situated at Bhanunagar, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary, without power and jurisdiction, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners, 36 in number, submit that they are the residents of Bhanunnagar, Mutyalampadu, Vijayawada Urban Mandal and each of them constructed a house in an extent of 34 sq. yards and have been residing there for the past 20 years by paying taxes to the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land occupied by the petitioners belongs to State Government (Revenue Department). He further submits that similarly situated persons have been granted pattas but the petitioners have not been granted pattas though they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the second respondent – Additional Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada demarcated the land and constructed a compound wall around the houses of the petitioners without following due process of law. Thus, the petitioners seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in contemplating to evict the petitioners from the houses situated at Bhanunnagar as illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the first respondent – Commissioner of Police and his subordinate officers are helping in illegal eviction of the petitioners. 3. The second respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations made in the writ affidavit with regard to the construction of houses, the continuous possession and enjoyment of the petitioners and the payment of taxes. It is stated that eviction notices have been issued to the petitioners under the Public Premises Eviction Act by the respondent railway authority and the notices have been served. The second respondent states that the said land does not belong to the State Government but it belongs to the Indian Railways and the railways are not empowered to grant pattas like the State Government. It is stated that the landless poor persons are entitled for pattas and house sites from the State Government by alienating the revenue poramboke lands but no such procedure or law is available so as to enable the railway authorities to give such pattas. It is further stated that merely because the adjacent land was allotted to poor persons for construction of the houses the same benefit cannot be extended insofar as the railway land is concerned and the petitioners cannot encroach upon the railway land. It is stated that the construction of houses or huts will not entitle or confer any right on the petitioners, as they are encroachers, and the entire area including the land occupied by the petitioners, which comes under Sy.No.28/181, belong to the Railways, therefore, notices have been issued for eviction of the encroachers. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only grievance of the petitioners is that without following due process of law they cannot be evicted. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as it is stated that appropriate notices have been issued to the petitioners/encroachers, it is always open to the second respondent pass appropriate final orders pursuant to the notices, if any, issued and served on the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall be not be dispossessed without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 2, 2008 DSK