IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13530 of 1997 Between: Ananth Swamy s/o. late Lakshmipathy R/O. 4-2-946, Ramkote, Hyderabad. A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of A.P. rep.by its Prl. Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. A.P. 2 The Dist. Collector Hyderabad Dist., Nampally Station Road, Hyderabd. 3 The Municipal Corp., of Hyderabad rep.by its Special-cum- Commissioner Head Office at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabd. A.P. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the action of the respondents for not allotting the alternative land of 2,200 sq.yds. in alternative to the acquisition as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and direct the respondents herein to provide alternative land to an extend of 2,200 sq.yds. of the same valu8e an lieu of the land acquired by the respondents belonging to the petitioner in TS No.5/IP and 5/2 in Ward No.107 Block-E situated at Teegalguda village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad-AP in the Twin Cities of Hyerabad and Secunderabad and to declare the acts of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner to allot the alternate land as illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution of India and may be pleased. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VENKATESWARI Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13530 of 1997 ORDER: State inaction to some extent and the high-handedness on the part of the authorities of revenue and municipal administration departments, has landed a freedom fighter in a situation where he was rendered homeless. The petitioner and his family members owned an extent of about Acs.3.00 of land in T.S.Nos.5/1P and 5/2 in Ward No.107/E of Teegalguda Revenue Village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad. Certain encroachments over the land came into existence. When the petitioner initiated steps for eviction of the encroachers, one of the encroachers, by name, Habeeb Khatoon, filed O.S.No.42 of 1964. A Cooperative Housing Society, the petitioner herein and certain others were made parties. The suit ended in a compromise, in terms of the conditions contained in I.A.No.649 of 1971. They included that an extent of 400 square yards of land would be handed over to the petitioner and an area of 1800 square yards appurtenant to two Temples would also be vacated by the encroachers. The possession of the land, namely 400 and 1800 square yards, was delivered to the petitioner through the process of Court in E.P.No.5 of 1981. The petitioner was a soft target and encroachments took place once again. The petitioner, who was an acknowledged freedom fighter, went on making representations to the respondents herein to protect his possession and to prevent illegal encroachments. At a time when the Government was evolving schemes to provide agricultural lands, house sites and pensions to the freedom fighters, in recognition of their service to the nation, the respondents turned a blind eye to the genuine request of the petitioner to protect his own property. The result was that the entire extent of 2200 square yards, mentioned above, was encroached. The respondents, particularly the District Collector, extended a helping hand to the encroachers by initiating proceedings under the A.P. Slum Improvement Act, 1956 and by granting pattas to the encroachers. The representations made by the petitioner were examined by the Revenue Divisional Officer and some other officials and ultimately, it was promised to him that suitable land would be allotted to him at a different location. The grievance of the petitioner is that no steps have been taken by the respondents so far. This Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to restore possession of 2200 square yards to the petitioner, or to provide alternative land. The Writ Petition was filed way back in the year 1997. Even after, the respondents have not chosen to file counter-affidavit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, who in the normal course ought to have been honoured and rewarded for his participation in the freedom struggle, was subjected to untold hardship, both physical and mental. It is a matter of common knowledge, freedom fighters are honoured and rewarded in one or the other way; be it in the form of allotment of Government lands or sanction of pensions. The petitioner was able to protect the possession of his property, when the country was under the alien rule. His trouble started, after the independence came, and the encroachments on his land took place with impunity and without any hindrance. It is a matter of record that the petitioner secured possession of 2200 square yards together with two temples through a decree of the Court in the year 1981. Instead of rescuing the petitioner when attempts were made by the encroachers to occupy the land, the respondents have only extended the helping hand to the encroachers by granting pattas under the Act. When the petitioner protested, the revenue authorities have promised him to provide alternative land. The same is evident from the communication, dated 15.05.2001, addressed to the Collector by the Additional Commissioner of Urban Community Development, Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. It is not as if the Government did not have the property to accommodate the petitioner. Thousands of acres of land in and around Hyderabad city was either sold or allotted to commercial organizations by successive Governments. It is case of arbitrariness or lack of reasonableness on the part of the respondents in not being able to protect the genuine interest of a freedom fighter. It is also a sad reflection on the system and the same cannot be countenanced. The petitioner is said to be in his nineties. Indifference towards him can no longer be tolerated. The Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall provide alternative site to the petitioner as proposed in the proceedings, dated 15.05.2001, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.26.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ