Inje Samiyelu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8744 AP

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU


                   W.P.No.45075 of 2018
O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking

removal of a wall allegedly constructed in Government

Paramboke Land and Bodhi canal.

This Court has heard learned counsel for both the

parties and has perused the counters filed by respondent

Nos.5 and 6. The report filed by the Government Pleader for

Assignment for the 4th respondent is also considered.

The petitioners have filed the case stating that they are

'assignees' of small extents of land in Sy.Nos.358 and 359 of

Ambedkarnagar Colony, Saripalli H/o Gopavaram Village,

Uppalaguptam Mandal, East Godavari District. There is a

Canal bodhi that runs through the houses and is useful for

drinking water etc. The 6th respondent allegedly constructed a

compound wall on the bodhi by filling up of soil. It is this

wall which is sought to be removed.

The counters filed show that the construction was made

by the 6th respondent with the oral permission of the

Grampanchayat and at the request of the colony people only.

All the residents of the Village have supposedly requested the

6th respondent to construct the wall.

The 4th respondent also clearly states in the counter

that the compound wall is constructed in 2014 by respondent

No.6 with the co-operation of the encroachers on either side of

the bodhi, who requested respondent No.6 to close the bodhi.

It is also stated that the land is Sy.Nos.358, 359 and 362 of

the Village is occupied by 30 families and they were not given

any pattas and that the occupants are encroachers.

In the light of this factual position, this Court has to

consider whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief.

The petitioners state that they were assigned the lands

since they are landless poor (para 3 of the affidavit). No

documentary proof is filed to show the assignment. On the

contrary, documents filed by the petitioners themselves show

that Ac.0.22 cents out of Ac.0.29 cents in Sy.No.358 and

Ac.0.56 cents out of Ac.0.67 cents in Sy.No.359 are illegally

occupied. The other extent of Ac.0.07 cents and Ac.0.11

cents in Sy.Nos.358 and 359 are occupied by the unofficial

respondents. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are

guilty of suppression of facts and have not sought a relief

from this Court by disclosing all the true and correct facts.

This by itself disentitles them from seeking an equitable and

discretionary relief of Mandamus.

Admittedly, the petitioners are encroachers. The 6th

respondent is also an encroacher. The counters filed make it

very clear that the compound wall was constructed in the

year 2014. This is not disputed by the petitioners by filing a

rejoinder to the counter affidavit. It is also apparent that

notices were issued under the Land Encroachment Act, but

no finality had yet been reached. The counter filed by

respondent No.5 clearly shows that at the request of the

colony people and the oral permission given by the

Grampanchayat, the 6th respondent came forward to

construct the wall. The Panchayat Secretary states that

because of the construction of the compound wall, the colony

people are safely utilising the canal poramboke site for

playing purposes.

Considering the conduct of all the parties to the writ,

this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be a silent

spectator. Admittedly, land belonging to the

Government/Panchayat has been encroached by the

petitioners and also respondents itself for the construction of

the compound wall abutting the bodhi etc. No written

permission was obtained. The Panchayat and the Revenue

Department namely respondent Nos.1 to 5 have an active

duty to safeguard and protect the public property. They are

the custodians of the public property. They cannot allow the

petitioners or the 6th respondent to construct in or occupy

and/or enjoy the Government property. If the construction of

wall is necessary for public safety, the respondent Nos.2 and

5 have an active duty to look into this aspect and construct

the same. They cannot be privy to or a party to illegal

encroachment or the unsanctioned construction of wall.

A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL)No.108 of

2022 and batch held that removal of encroachments is a

must. Time frame was fixed and directions were given for

removal of encroachments.

In line with the judgment in W.P.(PIL).No.108 of 2022

and batch, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are directed to take

immediate action to remove the encroachments by following

due process of law.

With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous

petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J

Date: 15.11.2022 KLP