IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 26183 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt Batchali Varalakshmi W/ Sri B.Appa Rao Hindu(F) 5-40/5(1) N.H.5 Road Chinna Gantiyada Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam 2 Smt Batchali Kameswarai W/ Chinna Rao Hindu(F) 2-5-12(1) N.H.5 Road Chinna Gantiyada Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam Reptd by its Commissioner Visakhapatnam 2 The Tahsildar Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam-26 3 The District Collector Visakhapatnam .....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 to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the attempted action of dispossession by the officials of the respondents on 23-11-2008 in a high handed manner without issuing any notice and without following any due process of law in spite of permanent injuction being in force granted in Os No.343/1996 by III Addl Junior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam and in spite of being listed for construction of pucca houses under Indiramma Urban Phase-II Scattered Housing Programme and the same being pending is illegal arbitrary capricious and violative of Article 21 of the constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the thatched houses bearing D.No.5-40/5(1) & 2-5-12(1) in an extent of 250 Sq Yds situated at Chinagantiyada of Gajuwaka,Visakhapatnam pending consideration of their case under Indiramma Urban Phase-II Scattered Housing Programme and also without following any due process of law Counsel for the Petitioners:SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26183 of 2008 ORDER: First petitioner is mother-in-law of second petitioner. It is their case that mother of first petitioner, being a repatriate from Burma (in 1964), occupied Government Poramboke land to an extent of 250 sq. yards situated in China Gantiyada Village in 1972. She appears to have raised thatched house. When there was allegedly interference by respondent Nos.2 and 3, first petitioner and her husband filed O.S.No.343 of 1996 on the file of Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for perpetual injunction. The same was decreed on 01.04.1999 against respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is further case of petitioners that after second petitioner married first petitioner’s son, they separated their family and constructed another house in a part of encroached land. It is also alleged that in accordance with orders of the Government in G.O.Rt.No.100 dated 10.05.2007 both the petitioners were included in the list of beneficiaries under INDIRAMMA (Integrated Novel Development In Rural Areas and Model Municipal Areas) Urban Phase II scattered housing programme in ward No.61 of Visakhapatnam for construction of two pucca houses. To that effect proceedings were also issued by second respondent on 10.10.2008. However, it is alleged that on 23.11.2008 ‘officials of the respondents’ attempted to dispossess the petitioners. This is the cause of action for filing instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to respondents not to dispossess the petitioners. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General – Andhra Area) and learned standing counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondents in view of decree for injunction against respondent Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.343 of 1996 dated 01.04.2008 the allegation of petitioners is not sound. Insofar as first respondent is concerned, there is no clear allegation as to interference by it. Therefore, writ petition itself is misconceived and cannot be accepted. However, this Court observes that if the petitioners are in possession of house sites/houses, without due process of law they cannot be deprived of their right to enjoy the land. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 01st December, 2008 GHN To 1 The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam Reptd by its Commissioner Visakhapatnam 2 The Tahsildar Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam-26 3 The District Collector Visakhapatnam 1.2CCs to GP for Revenue 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}