IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4799 of 2001 Between: 1 Khaja Meah S/o Balauddin, Cuddapa Dist. 2 Mohd.Khasim S/o.K.subbhan, Cuddapa Dist. 3 K.Jeelani Basha S/o.Mahaboob Basha, Cuddapa Dist. 4 P.Hussainamma W/o Balaiah, Cuddapa Dist. 5 K.Subbamma W/o Nabisaab, Cuddapa Dist. 6 S,Bashavalli S/o.Jaffaruddin, Cuddapa Dist. 7 R.Bharathamma W/o . Ramakrishna Reddy, Cuddapa Dist. 8 C.Nirmala W/o Raja Reddy, Cuddapa Dist. 9 R.rama Devi W/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Cuddapa Dist. 10 R.Vasantha, Cuddapa Dist. 11 BIbi jan W/oGulam Mahaboob, Cuddapa Dist. 12 G.Lakshmamma W/o Ramakrishna Reddy, Cuddapa Dist. 13 S.Dilshad Begum W/o Imam Saab, Cuddapa Dist. 14 Humayun qadar S/o.Late Shareef, Cuddapa Dist. 15 S.shannaz S/o Late Shareef, Cuddapa Dist. 16 S.Habeebbunnisa W/o Late S.K.Hussain, Cuddapa Dist. 17 R.Narayan S/o Reddy, Cuddapa Dist. 18 G.Raja S/o Late Syed Hussain, Cuddapa Dist. 19 Syed Chanu S/o Late Hussain, Cuddapa Dist. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Secretary to Govt, Social welfare Dept Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Dist Collector, Cuddapa Dist. 3 The RDO Cuddapa, Cuddapa Dist. 4 The MRO Cuddapa, Cuddapa Dist. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.RAJENDRA DESHMUKH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying compensation to the petitioners pertaining to their lands comprised in Survey Nos.595/2, 595/3, 596, 599, 599/2, 597/1, 598, 601/1 situated at Tarakaramanagar, Chemmumiapet, Kadapa District as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Rajendra Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In their affidavit, the petitioners stated that they are the absolute owners of an extent of Acs.7.02 cents comprised in the above mentioned survey numbers; that in the year 1994 about 234 persons belonging to SC/ST/BC communities came from the nearby villages, formed into groups, trespassed and occupied the above mentioned land without any lawful entitlement by removing boundary and measurement stones and put up 234 thatched huts, temporary houses etc., under the banner of ‘Abhivrudhi Porata Committee, Tarakarama Yuvajana Seva Sangham, Kadapa’. The petitioners specifically alleged that it was a fictitious organization set up only to encroach and grab the lands of the petitioners at the instigation and support of some persons belonging to some political groups and also some officials and that the petitioners made several requests to the encroachers to vacate the land, which went unheeded. The petitioners further pleaded that they approached respondents 2 to 4 with a request to evict the encroachers in the year 1994 itself and ultimately respondent No.2 gave endorsement on 27-07-1999, wherein he informed the petitioners that the Government has not been interfering in removal of the encroachments and that no compensation will be paid unless the land is acquired and allotted for house sites and that the petitioners may seek their redressal in a Civil Court against the encroachers and trespassers. The petitioners pleaded that the respondents have provided the encroachers with all amenities such as water, electricity, internal roads etc., apart from giving them possession certificates. The petitioners, therefore, sought for the relief as mentioned above. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is, inter alia, stated that as per the village records of Chemmumiapet, the petitioners are not the owners of the above mentioned survey numbers, but they might have purchased the said land in respect of which no mutation has taken place in favour of the petitioners and that the petitioners have not so far approached the Mandal Revenue Officer for incorporation of their names in the village accounts. It is further stated that 234 persons belonging to SC/ST/BC communities and minorities encroached into the land situated in the above mentioned survey numbers as it was found lying waste and raised their huts and that in view of their occupation of the land, they were provided with all the amenities such as bore wells, electricity, roads etc. It is alleged that the petitioners willfully allowed the encroachers to encroach into their lands without taking any steps either to prevent such encroachment or to evict them from the lands. It is admitted that some of the encroachers were sanctioned pucca houses by the MLA, Kadapa and in recognition of their possession, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa issued possession certificates, which according to the answering respondent were null and void. It is further stated that the District Administration is contemplating to rehabilitate the encroachers and since the scheduled areas are vacant, the petitioners can occupy their lands. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the internal correspondence taken place among respondents 1 to 3 and tried to impress upon the Court to hold that the respondents are bound to acquire the land and pay compensation to the petitioners. I have carefully considered the contents of the said correspondence, which reveals the fact that the lands in dispute were trespassed and encroached into by third parties belonging to weaker sections. In recognition of their occupation, possession certificates were given, amenities were provided and pucca houses in respect of certain persons were also sanctioned by the MLA. But the only question which arises for consideration is whether the respondents are liable to compensate the petitioners for the unauthorized occupation of the third parties. On the petitioners’ own pleadings, their lands were unlawfully occupied by different groups of persons who came to Kadapa town and settled there. It is not the case of the petitioners that in order to accommodate the said groups, who came from the surrounding villages of Kadapa District, the District Administration has handed over possession of vacant land of the petitioners. After the encroachers have settled down, the administration provided them with necessary amenities, which are required for basic living of any human being. In my considered view, provision of such amenities does not amount to the State or its officials recognizing the unlawful possession of the encroachers. Being the owners of the property, it is the responsibility of the petitioners to protect their possession from encroachment. It is not their case that, at any point of time, they have made any efforts to prevent such encroachments from taking place or that when such efforts were made, the State protected the interests of the encroachers. The fact remains that the petitioners remained passive spectators to the encroachments made by the third parties and evidently found it easier for them to approach the respondents to acquire the land. The petitioners have common law remedies available for evicting the unauthorized occupants and also to proceed against them under the provisions of special enactments like Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and Indian Penal Code, which provide for penalties for such trespass and land grabbing. Having not availed any of those remedies against the encroachers, the petitioners are not entitled to blame the respondents, who have merely ensured that those who already occupied the lands will not suffer for want of basic amenities. Looking from this angle, I am of the view that the impugned endorsement by which the petitioners were asked to retrieve their possession by taking recourse to civil proceedings does not suffer from any illegality and the respondents, who opined that the land need not be acquired to rehabilitate the encroachers, have not committed any violation of the rights of the petitioners either under the Constitution or under any other law. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedies for evicting the unauthorized occupants of their lands. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 13th August, 2008 vrn