IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23651 of 2008 Between: 1 S.K. Jahangir S/o. Late S.K. Mahaboob R/o. H.No.1-1-364/47, (S.R.T. 276/1), IHC, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. 2 S.K. Gousiya Begum W/o. S.K. Jahangir R/o. H.No.1-1-364/47, (S.R.T. 276/1), IHC, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner of Labour-1, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Circle-3, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Abids, Hyderabad. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Secretary of Labour Department, Secretariat Building, at Hyderabad. 5 Sujatha W/o. Late Ramprakash R/o. SRT-227, Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 issuing notice dated 25.10.2008 directing the petitioners to remove construction made in 50 Sy. Yards in H.No.1-1-364/47 (S.R.T. 276), IHC, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad is illegal, void and arbitrary and unconstitutional, consequently set aside the notice of enroachment dated 25.10.2008 issued by the respondent No.2 and allow the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI G.BALA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23651 of 2008 ORDER: The second petitioner is the wife of first petitioner, who purchased a part of house bearing No.SRT 276 (Municipal No.1-1-364/47) admeasuring 112.50 square yards (94.6 square metres) situated at Industrial Housing Colony (IHC), Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. It is alleged that an extent of 50 square yards in the backyard is appurtenant to SRT 276. After several representations by the owners of SRT houses, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 28.11.2000, to allot the excess land appurtenant to the quarters to the persons who own quarters. It is alleged that pursuant to another order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 31.01.2002, all the owners who were in possession of excess land were required to pay 100% market value as determined by the Commissioner of Labour. In the meanwhile, fifth respondent, who is owner of SRT 227, gave a complaint to the Municipality about the construction activity taken by the petitioners in the land admeasuring about 50 square yards. Therefore, permission was not granted. An enquiry was conducted by second respondent through Assistant Labour Officer – II to know whether construction is being made in the land appurtenant to SRT 276 or the Government land belonging to the Department of Labour. After receiving report, second respondent issued impugned notice directing the petitioners to demolish construction made in the Government land within one week. They were also informed that if they fail to remove the encroachment and demolish structures, necessary action will be taken under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Second respondent filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows. The original allottee of SRT 276, Smt.Sharifa Bee, sold part of the quarter admeasuring 37.5 square yards to Smt.S.A.Noorjahan Begum, W/o.Sri M.A.Majeed. The rest of the land admeasuring 112.5 square yards was sold to the petitioners under registered document dated 27.07.2001. In the meanwhile, Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 31.01.2002, for regularization of unobjectionable excess land occupied by allottees of registered SRTs in IHC at the rate of 15% of the prevailing registration market value if the extent of land is 1 to 50 square yards, 30% of the prevailing registration market value if the extent of land is between 51 to 100 square yards, and 100% of the prevailing registration market value if the extent of land is above 100 square yards. As per these orders the first petitioner applied for regularization of 50.48 square yards of excess land encroached by him. Allotment committee consisting of Labour, Revenue and Municipal Officials surveyed the encroachment and recommended for regularization on payment of Government registration value. Orders were accordingly issued vide proceedings No.H3/SRT-276/02-1, dated 31.07.2002, regularizing the encroachment subject to payment of full land cost. But, till today, petitioners have not paid full cost. Therefore, revised demand notice was issued on 30.07.2004, but petitioners failed to pay the full cost. Besides this, there is open space available behind SRT 276 left for common public purpose. As the petitioners did not pay the amount demanded, they have no right to make construction on the Government land because title would be transferred only after payment. Therefore, impugned notice was issued. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that even when person is in occupation of Government land, one cannot remove encroachment, and the remedy is to approach the Estate Officer under the Act. Opposing the writ petition, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that petitioners were asked to remove encroachment/construction as they have no right to make construction on the land of the Labour Department and they were informed that Department would approach Estate Officer under the Act. The controversy is in a narrow compass. Whether Department of Labour, which is admittedly administrating Industrial Housing Colonies, can stop construction made by a person even before the regularization is conferred when the title is transferred to such person? To appreciate this, it is necessary to mention that when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 31.01.2002, the applications by encroachers for regularization were processed by second respondent and in accordance with recommendation of the allotment committee, proceedings were issued by him. This only shows that entire land in IHC is within the control of Department of Labour. When as per the Government Order, admittedly, title cannot be transferred unless entire market value is paid, petitioners have no right to make construction. When such construction is made, it is open to the second respondent to stop the construction and take steps under the Act to evict the petitioners. By impugned notice, which reads as below, the same was done. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-I, Hyderabad NOTICE Notice No.SRT.276/2008 Dated 25.10.2008 Sub: S.I.H.S – Industrial Housing Colony, Chikkadapally – illegal encroachment of Government land by Sri Jahangir, R/o.SRT 276, Chikkadpally and taken up construction – Reported – Notice issued. Ref: Report of the ALO-II (Housing), dated 24.10.2008. It has been reported to the undersigned that Sri Jahangir, R/o.SRT 276, IHC, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad, unauthorisedly encroached the Govt. land admeasuring 50 Sq.yards and made illegal construction. Sri Jahangir is therefore directed to demolish the construction made on the Govt. land within one week from the date of receipt of this notice failing of which action will be taken as per the provisions of A.P.P.P(Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act, 1968, for demolition of unauthorized construction. Dy.Commissioner of Labour-I Hyderabad. There cannot by any doubt that the petitioners were directed to demolish the construction made on Government land within one week, as otherwise, action would be initiated under the provisions of the Act. It does not mean that second respondent threatened to demolish the structures. As the petitioners appear to be under the impression that they have right to make construction on the land belonging to the Government (Labour Department) even if without paying market value, it is always open to the concerned Officer of the Labour Department to evict the petitioners from the Government land by resorting to provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.12.2008 vs To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}