B. Mohan Naidu vs The Tahsildar ,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1342 AP

                                      1




       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                     W.P. (PIL) No. 220 of 2018
                   (Taken up through video conferencing)

Sri. B. Mohan Naidu, S/o.Parvatha
Naidu, Age 46 years, R/o. H.No. 6-
19, Vuyyala Chintha Mapakshi
Post,     Uyyalachintha    Village,
Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District,
Voter    ID:   AP/21/140/588729,
Aadhar No.862027921120, Mobile
No. 9505667946.
                                                             ...Petitioner
                                 Versus

The Tahsildar, Chittoor, and (11)
others.
                                                           ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner        :       Mr. P. Nagendra Reddy

Counsel for Respondents           :       Mr. T. Janardhan Rao
                                          G.P. for Revenue

Date of hearing                   :       23.02.2021

Date of pronouncement             :        .02.2021.

                              JUDGMENT

(Per C. Praveen Kumar, J)

1) As there was no representation on behalf of the Writ

Petitioner on 11.02.2021, it was directed to be listed after 10

days. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the

Petitioner. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue

and perused the record.

2) One B. Mohan Naidu filed the present Public Interest

Litigation under Section 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking the following relief:

a) "to declare the delay and inaction on the part of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in taking steps for evicting the Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 from the roadside margin in Sy. No. 123 and 125/3 of Uyyalachintha Village, Chittoor Mandal and District as per the Orders in RoC.F/3968/91, dated 16.11.1992, issued by Respondent No. 2 as arbitrary, illegal.

b) And consequently direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to take immediate action for evicting the Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 from the roadside margin in Sy. No. 123 and 125/3 of Uyyalachintha Village, Chittoor Mandal and District as per the Orders in RoC.F/3968/91, dated 16.11.1992, issued by Respondent No. 2.

c) And pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3) A perusal of the averments in the affidavit filed in

support of PIL would show that there is an R&B road passing

through the lands in Sy. Nos. 123 and 125/3. It is said that,

in the year 1990, the Tahsildar granted assignment of house

site pattas to Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 and others in the

roadside margin. When they encroached on to the public

road, the villagers made an application to Respondent No. 2,

who after conducting enquiry, passed an Order, on

16.11.1992, cancelling the assignment made to the

beneficiaries and consequently, directed the Tahsildar to allot

alternative house sites to the alleged encroachers and further

directed to evict them from the above two survey numbers. It

is said that in spite of such an Order being passed, there was

no action from the Respondents. The inaction on the part of

the Respondents, aided the unofficial Respondent Nos. 5 to

12 encroach on to the public road and cause obstruction and

inconvenience to the villagers, who use the said road for

walking, driving vehicles, carts etc. It is said that when the

villagers questioned the illegal encroachments, false cases

were being foisted against them. Thereafter, on 25.09.2017

and 20.10.2017, the villagers made a representation to

Respondent No. 1, but there was no proper response. Hence,

the present Public Interest Litigation is filed seeking the relief

referred to above.

4) A counter came to be filed by the Tahsildar disputing

the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition. It is submitted that, on 05.10.1989, the villagers of

Vuyyalachintha village submitted a representation to the then

Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor, stating that they are not

having house sites and requested to grant house sites pattas

in Sy. No. 123, which is a vacant government land. After

holding an enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued house

site pattas to, three Scheduled Caste and four Backward

Caste persons. It is also placed on record that the land in Sy.

No. 123 admeasuring Ac.1.34 cents is classified as Road

Poramboke and land admeasuring Ac.0.34 cents in Sy.

No.125/3 is classified as Cart Track Poramboke as per village

accounts.

5) Aggrieved by the action of granting house site pattas, an

appeal was preferred before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Chittoor, who after conducting an enquiry passed an Order

on 16.11.1992 directing that the house site pattas granted by

the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor, shall be cancelled and

accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer was directed to

provide alternative house sites to the eligible persons in

government land. Thereafter, house site pattas were allotted

to those seven persons, who constructed houses under

Indirama Housing Construction Scheme. About 26 years

later, the present Public Interest Litigation is filed,

questioning the action of the Respondents.

6) Insofar as the alleged encroachments are concerned,

paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the counter filed by the Tahsildar,

read as under:

"8. In reply to para 4(a) of the petitioners affidavit, it is submitted that the averments stated by the petitioner i.e., there is R&B Road in their village which proceeds through Sy. No. 123 and 125/3 are correct, but there is no obstruction to travel through this land as stated by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Sy. No.123 total extent Ac.1.34 of Mapakshi village is classified as Road Poramboke and only 7 cents in the road margin issued as house site pattas to the poor SCs of the village. Further the land in Sy. No. 125/3 extent 0.34 of Mapakshi village is classified as Cart Tract Poramboke and there is no

house site patta granted. Further the remaining extent Ac.1.27 in Sy. No.123 and the entire land in Sy. No. 125/3 extent 0.34 remains as road and cart track in the records, and there is no obstruction to travel by the villagers through the road.

9. In reply to para 4(b) of the petitioners affidavit, it is submitted that, the averments stated by the petitioner that the then Mandal Revenue Officer has issued house site patta in the road side margin, and when they encroached the public road, the villagers made an appeal to the 2nd respondent, and after conduct of enquiry passed orders in RoC F/3968/91 dated 16.11.1992 cancelling the assignment made to the beneficiaries and directed the Tahsildar to allot alternative house sites to them and further directed evict the encroachments if any in Sy. No. 123 and 125/3. The said order became final and no person challenged the said order are not true and correct. It is submitted that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent i.e, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, are conditional and not final. It is submitted that the Revenue Divisional Officer has cancelled the house site pattas issued to the respondents, but to evict encroachment if any after allotment of alternate house sites to them only. Here in this case the respondents stating that they have filed appeal before the Collector, Chittoor, but not filed any judgment copy or any proof except a Xerox copy of appeal petition. It is further submitted that there are no records available in this office with regard to providing alternate sites to the respondents, or any action taken for eviction of them after following due procedure as laid down in the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. The petitioner herein has never raised such representations before competent authority for such inaction as stated in the writ petition. It is therefore submitted that without following such procedure it cannot be said that the above orders issued by the 2nd respondent is final after lapse of 26 years as stated in this para and it is not correct."

7) Further paragraph 12 of the counter reads as under:

"12. It is submitted that the Uyyalachintha HW villagers have complained against running of poultry farm run by Sri M Vasu S/o. Damodara Naidu which was closed to the Uyyalachintha HW village, stating that it is releasing bad and unbearable smell round the clock due to which there is much probability and coming of human endanger threats from poisonous insects and snakes. On the above complaint, the District Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Chittoor, after thorough enquiry in the matter promulgated the Orders under Section 133 Cr.P.C. directing the Tahsildar, Chittoor, to close the poultry farm belongs to Sri M.Vasu in the interest of Public Health Safety and orders issued by the Tahsildar, Chittoor vide Orders in RoC B/10/2017 dated 31.10.2017. Aggrieved by the above orders, Sri M. Vasu has filed a Writ Petition No.36948 of 2017, dated 02.11.2017 and suitable counter was filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent and the Tahsildar, Chittoor on 13.12.2017. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition is filed as part of counter case to the complaint made by the Harinajawada villagers against his close associate Sri. M. Vasu against running of a poultry farm and action taken against him as mentioned supra. It is relevant to mention that there is road leading from Chittoor to Mapakshi village through Uyyalachinta through the Sy. No. 123 and there is no obstructions or objection to travel this road. There is 13 feet BT road is existing and about 23 feet road is existing near the existing houses constructed as mentioned supra."

8) From a perusal of the averments made in the counter, it

is very clear that the villagers of Harinajawada made a

complaint against Sri. M. Vasu, who is a close associate of Writ

Petitioner, against running of a poultry farm and causing

health problems to the villagers living in and around the

poultry farm, apart from poisonous insects and snakes,

sneaking around. In fact, it has been specifically stated in the

counter that there is a road leading from Chittoor to Mapakshi

village through Sy. No. 123 and there are no obstructions or

objections to travel on the said road.

9) No reply is filed disputing the averments in the counter.

Therefore, from a reading of the contents of the counter and

the material placed before the court along with counter, it

appears to us that there are no encroachments on the pathway

/ track in Sy. No. 123 and 125/3 of Uyyalachintha Village and

alternate sites were allotted to the alleged encroachers who

have already raised houses and living there.

10) Having regard to the above, the Writ Petition (PIL) stands

closed. No order as to costs.

11) All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                   C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J


Dt. 04.03.2021.
SM...





       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

W.P. (PIL) No. 220 of 2018 (Per C. Praveen Kumar, J)

Dt. 04.03.2021

SM..