IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1600 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/07/2008 in WP NO : 3516 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Erva Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o. Shri Malla Reddy, R/o. Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. 2 E. Sadasiva Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. 3 E. Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Erva Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o. Sri Malla Reddy, R/o. Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. 2 E. Sadasiva Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. 3 E. Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o. Ramakrishna Reddy, R/o. Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. 4 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Gagan Mihar, Nampalli, Hyderabad. 5 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 6 The Assistant City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle, No.III, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.NARASIMHA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1600 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 04.07.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, disposing of the writ petition W.P.No.3516 of 2001, wherein a relief was sought to declare the action of the first respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad, in purporting to demolish the dwelling units bearing H.Nos.1-7-1043, 1-7- 1044 and 1044/1 situated in Sy.No.179 of Zamistanpur Village, Hyderabad, without issuing any notice or initiating acquisition proceedings, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Appellants are respondents 1 and 5, respondents 1 to 3 herein are writ petitioners and respondents 4 to 6 herein are respondents 2 to 4, in the said writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. 5. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the present Writ Appeal, are as under: Writ petitioners are the absolute owners of the land admeasuring 6,614.21 square meters, situate in Sy.No.179 of Zamistanpur Village, Hyderabad; that they constructed houses therein prior to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, came into force; that municipal numbers viz., H.Nos.1-7-1043, 1-7-1044 and 1044/1 were also allotted to the said houses (dwelling units) and that, thereafter, they filed a declaration under Section 6 (1) of the Act before the second respondent-Special Officer and Competent Authority, who, in turn, passed orders declaring that the writ petitioners are not surplus holders in respect of the said land. 6. Be that as it may, the Assistant City Planner, the fourth respondent, threatened to demolish the said houses of writ petitioners and dispossess them, without issuing any notice, on the ground that the said dwelling units were raised in the Government land. 7. In the counter-affidavit, filed by respondents 1 and 4, it has been stated that Sy.No.179, in which the writ petitioners raised constructions, correlates to T.S.No.6, Block F, Ward No.154 of Zamistanpur Village, admeasuring 22,580 square meters and as per the survey records, the said land belongs to the Government and TLSR Register is also maintained accordingly. 8. In nutshell, it is the contention of respondents 1 and 5 that the writ petitioners are encroachers of the Government land. In that background, the learned single Judge found that even assuming that the said land, in which dwelling units were raised by the writ petitioners, belongs to the Government, the writ petitioners cannot be evicted, without following due process of law. 9. The operative portion of the impugned order, passed by the learned single Judge, is as under: “Admittedly, no notice has been issued before the threatened action. Even assuming that the said lands are Government lands without taking any appropriate legal proceedings either under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, if the respondents are entitled to do so or by other legal means under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, the petitioners cannot be evicted and their houses cannot be demolished. If the Government claims the land, it is always open to it to initiate action under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, as it may not be just and proper to evict the petitioners by invoking summary proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act.” 10. From the above, it is obvious that the learned single Judge had observed that the respondents therein can initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the writ petitioners either under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act or under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition), Act. But, in the latter part of the order, eventually, the learned single Judge had observed that if the Government claims the land, it is always open to it to initiate action under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, as it may not be just and proper to evict the writ petitions by invoking summary proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act. 11. Therefore, only one option is left to respondents 1 and 5 to protect the land in question and evict the writ petitioners from it. 12. The statutory rights available either to a citizen or to the Government, as the case may be, shall not be restricted to only one or a few remedies. In other words, all the remedies should be made available to the aggrieved parties for reddressal of their grievance, including the Government. 13. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents 1 and 5, to the effect that the learned single Judge ought not to have restricted the remedies available to the Government. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the observation made by the learned single Judge giving liberty to the Government to proceed against the writ petitioners to evict them from the land in question, which allegedly belongs to the Government, only by invoking the provisions of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, is not sustainable. 15. We are conscious that the learned single Judge was right in noticing the aspect of possibility of the writ petitioners being evicted from the land in question summarily, without any sufficient time. Of course, it is too early for this Court to express the view that the writ petitioners are bound to be evicted from the land in question and it shall not be understood that nor this Court shall be understood to have expressed any view in that regard. 16. Therefore, suffice it to dispose of the Writ Appeal by granting liberty to the Government to avail all or any of the remedies under law and that reasonable opportunity and time be accorded to the writ petitioners, while initiating proceedings, available under law, against them by respondents 1 and 5. 17. It is further needless to mention that the writ petitioners also can avail any scheme available and is in force for regularization of the said land, if so chosen by them. 18. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 03RD DECEMBER 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Gagan Mihar, Nampalli, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant City Planner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Circle, No.III, Hyderabad. 4 2 CCS to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2CD copies