IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13823 of 2008 Between: Smt. Noorjahan, D/o. Late Sakhinabhi, R/o. 16th (20) Ward, Chinthaludi, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Eluru Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Eluru (M), Eluru (Town), West Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents against the petititoner by issuing the impugned notice dt. 14-6-2008 and trying evict the petitioner from the land T.S.No. 134 and 245 extent of 105 Sq. Yards situated at (20) 16th Ward, Eluru 48 th Division, Eluru, West Godavari District is arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.N.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: What is impugned is the notice dated 14-6-2008 issued by the 1st respondent intimating the petitioner that she is an encroacher of Govt. land of an extent of 40 Sq. yards out of a total extent of 105 Sq. yards in T.S.Nos. 134 and 245 of 16th Ward, Chinthalaudi, Eluru Division, Eluru, West Godavari District and calling upon her to show- cause as to why she be not evicted. The petitioner asserts to be an agricultural coolie and landless poor person who inherited a hut and a small extent of land in T.S.No. 134 and 245 of 16th Ward, Chinthalaudi, Eluru, West Godavari District, in an extent of 105 Sq. yards, through her mother Shaik Sakeema Bee. According to the petitioner, Sakeema Bee was assigned the property about 50 years ago and since the entire family are residing in the property continuously, since the assignment in favour of Sakeema Bee. The 2nd respondent, on 9-6-2000, permitted the petitioner to construct a toilet in the property after endorsing a certificate that Sakeema Bee is in occupation of the property in Sy.No. 134 and 245. The petitioner states that the Housing Board had also sanctioned her a loan of Rs.10,000/- to construct the toilet pursuant to the permission by the 2nd respondent. The 4th respondent is a neighbour of the petitioner. The 4th respondent complained that the petitioner had encroached on the land assigned to the said respondent. On the complaint of the 4th respondent, the impugned proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) and a notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued on 14-6- 2008. The petitioner states that she has been in possession of the property and has been paying taxes and has produced for the perusal of this Court today, Xerox copies of tax payment receipts since 1987. The 1st respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that neither the petitioner nor her mother was ever assigned the land under dispute. The property in T.S.No. 134 and 245 was assigned to the 4th respondent in 1993 after due enquiry. The 4th respondent was residing in the land even prior to her assignment. Despite the assignment in favour of the 4th respondent, the petitioner unlawfully encroached on an extent of 40 Sq. yards. Further, according to the 1st respondent’s counter, the Lokayuktha, on the complaint by the 4th respondent had noticed an encroachment by the petitioner in Government land and directed the Tahsildar, Eluru to evict the petitioner and restore the land to the original assignee. Refusing the petitioner’s claim the 1st respondent states that on the basis of the permission given by the 2nd respondent for construction of a toilet merely as the petitioner was in occupation of the property, though unlawfully, and permission given to enable provision of civil amenities like water, electricity etc., or only since the petitioner is paying taxes and user charges to the Government, would not amount to title in her favour. While justifying the impugned proceedings for eviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, the 1st respondent at para 7 states that since the petitioner claims to be a landless poor eking out her livelihood as a coolie and also claims to be below the poverty line, if she applies for a house-site, the Government would consider assignment of land to the petitioner. To the above counter, filed on 14-10-2008 along with the application by the 1st respondent seeking vacation of the interim order passed by this Court on 30-6-2008, the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder. On 30-6-2008, this court ordered status-quo be maintained in respect of an extent of 105 Sq. yards in T.S.Nos. 134 and 235 of 16th Ward, Chinthalaudi, Eluru. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the record, this court finds no case made out by the petitioner for directing her continuance on the land of an extent of 105 Sq. yards in T.S.Nos. 134 and 235, in which the petitioner is alleged by the 1st respondent, to be in occupation unlawfully in an extent of 40 Sq. yards. The impugned proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent to evict the petitioner under the provisions of the Act are impeccable and warrant no interference. If the petitioner, who claims to be a landless poor person and eking out livelihood as an agricultural coolie, is desirous of obtaining assignment of land for herself, she is at liberty to apply to the State or the competent official for assignment of a plot of land for her habitat. On such an application being made, this Court is not in doubt, the appropriate authorities will consider the same. The averments of the 1st respondent in para 7 of the counter-affidavit also are to the effect that any application of the petitioner for assignment of a house-site would be considered favourably. However, the petitioner cannot resist the present proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent for her eviction. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed with the observations above. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 24th April, 2009. GRR