HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARNUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 19567 OF 2006 Between: Mrs.Khaja Bee and Others … Petitioners AND The Ranga Reddy District Collector, Hyderabad. And another. … Respondents : ORDER : Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V.Vinod Kumar Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Shri N.Ramakrishna Pramahansa Dated: 4th December, 2006 Per C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J This is a petition for grant of a declaration that the action of the respondents, namely, District Collector, Ranga Reddy and Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally in demolishing or seeking to demolish the petitioners’ houses in Survey No.124 of Gopanpally village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The other prayer made in the writ petition is for restraining the respondents from demolishing the house in question. The petitioners claim to have purchased different parcels of land ranging from 100 square yards to 1200 square yards in Survey No.124 of Gopanpally village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from the lawful owners of the land and constructed houses. They also claim to have obtained electricity connections and have been paying municipal taxes. They have averred that on 13.09.2006, a Revenue Inspector from the office of the second respondent came with a posse of about 35 police constables and police officers and asked them to vacate their houses claiming that the land on which the houses were built is a government land and that the constructions made thereon are illegal. When some of the petitioners resisted, the police attempted to forcibly evict them. The police threw out the petitioners pulling from their houses and had even dragged the occupants of the houses, irrespective of their ages and sex. They then demolished about a dozen houses apart from the compound wall and two rooms of the 10th petitioner. Apprehending further damage to their property, the petitioners filed the present writ petition for the aforementioned relief. According to the petitioners, the lands purchased by them are patta lands and not assigned lands and that even khasra pahanis prove the said fact. They have pleaded that even if the land in question is claimed to be government land, the procedure prescribed under the statues like the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 or the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 has to be followed. If there is any bona fide title dispute, respondents, according to the petitioners, have to approach the Civil Court for establishment of their title. In support of their claim of ownership, the petitioners have filed xerox copies of some of the sale deeds executed and registered in their names. They have also filed copies of electricity bills and house tax receipts. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit in which it is inter alia mentioned that the pahanis for the year 1950-51 to 1953-54 show that the land in survey No.124 admeasuring Ac.279.38 guntas is classified as Poramboke Sarkari, meaning, government land. However khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 of Gopanpally village mentioned certain private persons’ names against different extents for the first time and that the same entries continued in subsequent pahanis. It is further mentioned in the counter affidavit that except the entries in the khasra pahanis, no other revenue record contains any entries in the name of those individuals and whenever there is a change in ownership necessary entries will be made in Faisal Patti as “Ain Izafa” and after approval of Nizam Jamabandi, entries in pahanis have to be made. However, such entries have not been made in respect of the land comprised in Survey No.124. According to the second respondent, when the unauthorized occupancy of the petitioners came to the notice of the departmental authorities, the matter was reported to the first respondent i.e. District Collector, Ranga Reddy District vide letter No.B/2648/2003, dated 30.12.2003 with a request to take necessary action. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that out of the total extent of Ac.279.38 guntas, an extent of Ac.48.18 guntas was allotted to APIIC and the remaining area of Ac.233.20 guntas belong to the government. It is further mentioned that the constructions that have come up on the lands in Survey No.124 are illegal and the persons, who have unauthorizedly occupied the land, are alienating the same by converting the same into plots. Since the year 2003, the respondents have kept a vigil over the government lands through Land Protection Cell of Ranga Reddy District and only certain rooms and compound walls, which were unauthorisedly constructed recently, were demolished. It is further alleged that some persons, taking advantage of the land being vacant, have started raising compound walls and rooms overnight. The second respondent denied the allegation that the residents of the houses were thrown out, while justifying the action of demolition of the recent constructions on the ground that it was done in order to protect the government property. We have heard Sri G.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The material brought on the record shows that the petitioners are in occupation of certain parcels of land and are residing in the houses constructed by them. The copies of sale deeds, electricity bills and municipal tax receipts filed with the writ petition amply support the assertion of the petitioners regarding their occupation. That apart, in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, the factum of occupation of the houses by the petitioners has not been disputed though the said respondent has described them as unauthorized occupants. According to the second respondent, the land in question was shown as government poramboke in khasra pahanis of 1950-51 to 1953-54, but from 1954-55, the names of private individuals had been entered. According to the second respondent, the entries recorded in the khasra pahani of 1954-55 are illegal and the petitioners cannot claim any right over the land. In the aforementioned factual scenario, we see justification in the petitioners’ grievance that the respondents are interfering with their enjoyment of the property in their respective occupation without following the procedure established by law. In our opinion, before evicting the petitioners from the properties in dispute, the respondents have to establish their right over the land and this can be done only by taking recourse to the relevant statute and before such a determination is made, the petitioners who admittedly are in possession of the property are entitled to a notice and an opportunity of substantiating their claim of ownership. It is only after resolving the issue of ownership that the respondents are entitled to take appropriate action for recovery of possession after following the procedure prescribed by law. Till then, any attempt to dispossess the petitioners from the property in their occupation will have to be treated as violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 and constitutional protection afforded under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondents shall not interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the residential houses. (ii) The respondents may initiate appropriate proceedings for determination of the issue of ownership of the land in Survey No.124 of Gopanpally village, in occupation of the petitioners and decide the said issue after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners. (iii) In the event it is held that the land in dispute belongs to the Government, it shall be open to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedies as are available to them in law in order to question the said decision and it is equally open to the respondents to recover possession by following due process of law. (iv) Till the determination of the issue of ownership, the petitioners shall not alter the physical features of the structures nor raise any fresh constructions. ( v ) It shall be open to the respondents to prevent unauthorized occupation of land by third parties and also to prevent new structures from being erected by such persons. As a sequel to the allowing of writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.24682 of 2006 has become infructuous and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J G.S.SINGHVI, CJ 4th December, 2006 mdaa/ksld