The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.5975 of 2002 Dated: 26-11-2009 Between: D.L.Narasimham and 5 others …Petitioners and 1.The District Collector, Hyderabad, and & others. …Respondents The Court made the following: O r d e r : The petitioners, who are residents of Gandhinagar Area, have been constrained to initiate yet another round of litigation to ensure eviction of unauthorized occupants of lands situated in two layouts viz., Ratnabai Achaiah layout and Seshagiri layout at Bakaram Village, Hyderabad District. The undisputed facts are narrated hereunder: Respondent Nos.4 to 38 have been in occupation of certain portion of the lands forming part of the above- mentioned layouts. The petitioners have pleaded that these lands form part of 40 feet wide road and that the unauthorized occupation of the said lands by respondent Nos.4 to 38 has been causing enormous hardship to them and other residents of the area. When the then Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, issued demolition notices to the hut-dwellers on 26-03-1984, they have filed W.P.No.6501 of 1984 and the same was dismissed by this Court by Order, dated 18-09-1984. A specific finding was recorded in the said order that the petitioners therein, who were 19 in number, were not entitled, as of right, to continue in the land and the huts constructed by them were without proper sanction from the Municipal Corporation and that the Municipal Corporation will be justified in taking appropriate steps to demolish the huts unauthorizedly constructed. Having regard to the representations made by the petitioners therein that their applications for grant of pattas were pending before the Government, the learned Judge directed the Municipal Corporation to wait for a period of 30 days, to note the outcome of the representations, before undertaking demolition. The learned Judge further observed that as respondent No.1 has accepted in principle that some alternative land will be provided to the petitioners therein to rehabilitate them, he may consider allotting alternative land. Thereafter, the hut-dwellers including some of the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.1557 of 1984 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the huts situated in Survey Nos.118 and 121 of Anna Nagar slum, Gandhi Nagar, admeasuring 2092 square yards. The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Court by Judgment and Decree, dated 15-11-1993. Later on, one Sri C.Narasimham filed L.G.C.No.27 of 1993 under Section 8 (1) of the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act to declare the hut-dwellers as land grabbers in respect of Survey Nos.125 and 126. The said Land Grabbing Case was allowed by the Special Court vide its judgment, dated 16th November, 1994, by declaring the hut-dwellers as land grabbers. The petitioners and other similarly situated persons, who are the residents of the area, continued to make representations for eviction of the hut-dwellers. Questioning the order of the Special Court, the aggrieved persons filed W.P.No.22273 of 1994, wherein the respondent-Corporation offered alternative sites with sheds constructed in 60 square yards of land at Malakpet to the hut-dwellers. The Writ Petition was, accordingly, disposed of. As the Official respondents could not ensure eviction of the hut-dwellers including respondent Nos.4 to 38, petitioner No.1 filed W.P.No.4202 of 1995 for a mandamus to direct the official respondents to implement the order in W.P.No.6501 of 1984. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court wherein it was observed that there is no doubt that the official respondents shall implement the laws faithfully and honestly and exercise the power vested in them in public interest. Accordingly, a direction was given to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, to consider the representation of the petitioner and also the effect of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition and dispose of the same. This Court left it open to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, to provide alternative accommodation to the encroachers. Instead of evicting the encroachers, the Municipal Corporation initiated proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This has forced the petitioners to file W.P.No.9443 of 1997 and other similarly situated persons to file W.P.No.14427 of 1996. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, has filed W.P.No.110 of 1998 questioning the order of the Special Court in L.G.C.No.37 of 1996, declaring the hut-dwellers as land grabbers. A Division Bench of this Court by its Common Order, dated 08-05-2001, dismissed W.P.No.110 of 1998 filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad, and allowed W.P.Nos.14427 of 1996 and 9443 of 1997, by holding that initiation of land acquisition proceedings was the result of the arbitrary exercise of power, because, the encroachers had fought the litigation in the civil Court and special Court unsuccessfully and that, after they failed in all the legal battles, as a last resort they have got initiated the land acquisition proceedings by exerting pressure. The Division Bench further held that the initiation of land acquisition proceedings was colourable exercise of power and on the said premise, it has set aside and quashed the land acquisition proceedings. The said order had become final. After disposal of the above-mentioned Writ Petitions by the Division Bench, the official respondents evicted hut- dwellers from the land, which was subject matter of L.G.C.No.37 of 1996. As the rest of the land, which is in occupation of respondent Nos.4 to 38, forming part of road margin has not been taken possession by the official respondents by evicting respondent Nos.4 to 38, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition for implementation of the above-mentioned orders of this Court issued from time to time. Initially, this Writ Petition was filed without impleading the private respondents. Subsequently, the private respondents got themselves impleaded as respondent Nos.4 to 38. Both the official respondents and the private respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits. Having regard to the counter-affidavit, dated 08-06- 2009, filed by respondent No.1, it is not necessary to refer to the contents of the counter-affidavits filed by the unofficial respondents. In the said affidavit, respondent No.1 stated that the Tahsildar, Musheerabad, and her staff inspected the area on 02-06-2009 and verified the persons, who were in occupation of the land in dispute, in order to provide alternative accommodation in the form of pacca houses constructed at Yellammabanda, Ranga Reddy District; that the enquiry by the Tahsildar revealed that out of 42 families only 37 were physically present in the site; that out of the said 37 families, 4 persons produced certificates issued by the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Land Ceiling Act’), regularizing their occupation; that as per the report of the Tahsildar, Musheerabad, the possession certificate-cum- provisional orders of allotment were prepared on 02-06- 2009 in favour of 33 families; that when the Tahsildar and her staff went to the area with police protection on 03-06- 2009 to serve the said certificates, the said 33 families refused to receive the same; that another attempt made by the Tahsildar on 04-06-2009 also failed for the same reason; and that a panchanama was conducted to that effect on 04-06-2009. Sri V.Raghu, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 38, contended that the land in occupation of his clients is declared as surplus and that in recognition of the same, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 10-01-2006, in favour of four of the private respondents and that the applications filed by the other respondents are pending. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners cannot seek eviction of his clients. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. As has been repeatedly held by this Court in the orders referred to above, the private respondents herein and other slum dwellers have been in occupation of portions of the land situated in the above-mentioned layouts without any authority and they are liable for eviction. The admitted fact remains that the suit filed by the hut-dwellers including some of the private respondents herein for declaration of their title and for injunction was dismissed and the said judgment and decree had become final. Even the attempt of the Government to acquire the land of the hut- dwellers also failed in view of quashing of the land acquisition proceedings by this Court. Therefore, it is not permissible for the private respondents to seek to justify their continuance on the land, which, admittedly, does not belong to them, on the ground that their applications for grant of pattas under the Land Ceiling Act are pending. The private respondents do not dispute that the State Government is providing alternative accommodation to them except to the four persons referred to above, in whose favour the State Government had issued an order granting pattas. Barring those four persons, the other private respondents and any other slum dwellers occupying the land in the above-mentioned two layouts have no right, whatsoever, to squat on the property causing serious inconvenience to the residents of the locality. It is the bounden duty of the official respondents to see that these squatters are evicted as soon as possible and relocate them at the place, where they have been provided with alternative accommodation. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to evict forthwith all the hut-dwellers including respondent Nos.4 to 29, except the four persons covered by G.O.Ms.No.24, dated 10.01.2006. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners are given liberty to question the said GO. No costs. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 26th November, 2009 lur