IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION NO.2346 OF 2011 Between : Bagathi Manemma @ Nagamani ...PETITIONER A N D The District Collector and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION NO.2346 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, vide proceedings R.C.No.452/2010A, dated 03.06.2010, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the land in question on or before 14.06.2010, failing which the Mandal Revenue Inspector and the Village Revenue Officer of Anakapalli Mandal, are directed to take possession of the said land along with the material. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been residing in the subject premises more than 14 years and the petitioner also paid requisite fee for construction of R.C.C. Building; and that in case, respondent Nos.1 and 2 intend to acquire the land of the petitioner, then adequate compensation or alternative site shall be provided to the petitioner. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner is an encroacher over the subject land, which is required for construction of fly over. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to remain in the said land. He further submits that as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 Revenue (Assignment-I) Dept, dated 23.12.1993, the assignees, whose lands are resumed for public purpose, shall be paid compensation equivalent to the market value on par with the pattadars with some stipulations i.e., without any right to reference under Sections 18 and 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the compensation is to be treated as ex-gratia only. Further recently the Government have issued orders vide G.O.M.No.243 Revenue (LA) Dept, dated 27.03.2010 for payment of ex-gratia to various categories of encroachers/enjoyers of the Government lands acquired for irrigation projects. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the petitioner falls in any one of the aforesaid categories, she should be paid compensation or ex-gratia as per the said G.Os. 5. After hearing the counsel for both parties, it is clear that the structures of the petitioner had been partially demolished even before passing of an interim order by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further submits that the work of the fly over is almost complete and it was held up because of the illegal constructions raised by the petitioners and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of stay. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, it is clear that the construction raised by the petitioner is coming in the way of fly over, which is under construction. In this regard, some photographers have also been placed before this Court. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled to continue in the property under her possession and the respondents are entitled to demolish the structures belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of construction of fly over. However, as the petitioner has raised the construction, for which, she has to receive compensation or alternative site from the Government. 8. Therefore, as the petitioner has been in possession of the property for sufficiently long period, the authorities shall pay the compensation as per the value of the constructions or the petitioner shall be provided with alternative site in accordance with Government policy. The respondents shall pay the compensation to the petitioner or provide alternative site within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if otherwise eligible. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J FEBRUARY 09, 2011. YVL