THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.2396 of 2003 DATED: 26.08.2010 Between: D. Chenchamma and others .. Petitioners And The Nellore Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Municipal Office, Nellore District and another. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioners claim to be in occupation of ten cents of P.W.D. Poramboke land situated at Kalvakatta, Arundatipalem, Tadikala Bazar Center, Vijayagopalapuram, Nellore. They state that, since 1963, they have been continuing in occupation of the said land, by erecting huts, and they dug bore-wells and spent huge amounts for the purpose of developing the said land. While so, it is their grievance that they submitted a representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer and other competent authorities, requesting to grant them house site pattas in respect of the land in their occupation, but, so far no orders are passed on the said representation, and on the other hand, the respondent authorities are trying to evict them from the subject land. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 07.02.2003, passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.3151 of 2003, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners, without following due process of law. The 1st respondent- Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation filed counter-affidavit stating that the land, which is in occupation of the petitioners, falls under the road in the master plan issued by the Government. As the said land is required for public purpose i.e. to make way to the Markfed Godowns, the District Collector required the respondent Corporation to evict the petitioners from the said land and when the Corporation asked the petitioners to vacate the land, they filed the present writ petition. It is further stated that though some of the petitioners were provided alternative sites by the revenue department, they are not vacating the encroached land. The 2nd respondent- Mandal Revenue Officer, did not file counter-affidavit. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are still continuing in possession of the subject land and that they have no objection to occupy the alternative house sites, if provided. In view of the stand taken by the 1st respondent that some of the petitioners were provided alternative house sites by the revenue department, but they are not vacating the encroached land, and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have no objection to occupy the alternative house sites, without keeping the writ petition pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose it of with the following directions: “The petitioners, those who were already allotted alternative house sites by the revenue authorities are directed to vacate the encroached land forthwith and take possession of the house sites allotted to them. So far as the petitioners who are not allotted alternative house sites are concerned, the respondent authorities shall consider allotment of alternative house sites to them, as per their eligibility, and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible. It is further directed that if those petitioners are found not eligible for allotment of alternative house sites and are required to be evicted from the encroached land, then they shall be given two weeks’ time for vacating the encroached land. ” The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 26.08.2010 IBL