AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proposed action of the respondent No.5 to demolish the house of the petitioner on the land admeasuring 130 square yards bearing D.No.49-3-129, Gandhiji Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada, without issuing any notice or following the due process of law. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents not to demolish the petitioner’s house and not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 200 square yards, bearing D.No. 49-3-129, Gandhiji Colony, Gunadala, Vijayawada. It is submitted that the petitioner has acquired the property from his ancestors and that he is residing in the said property by raising a thin shed house along with his family. It is stated that the petitioner has been regularly paying the applicable house tax since 2006 and the water tax since 2007. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 acquired 70 square yards of land from the petitioner out of the 200 square yards in the year 2011 for constructing a railway over bridge. It is also submitted that the respondents have been allotted a house under JNNURM Housing Scheme, Jakkampudi, Block No. 72, Flat No.SF2 in the name of the petitioner’s wife towards compensation. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing in the remaining 130 square yards.
It is submitted that on 29.07.2024, the 5th respondent had come over to the petitioner’s property and called upon the petitioner to vacate the premises within a period of 24 hours, failing which the respondents shall deploy a JCB and demolish the house of the petitioner.
It is submitted that the petitioner is now dependent on the income of his son after having met with an accident. It is also submitted that the respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner from his property without following due process of law.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submit that a detailed counter has been filed and that the subject property is government irrigation land, and that no valid title or legal rights can vest in the petitioner over the same. It is also submitted that, to rehabilitate the encroachers of the government land, the encroachers were allotted alternative accommodation under the JNNURM Housing Scheme. It is submitted that a flat was allotted in the name of Smt. Nalluri Chandra Leela, when the property under the petitioner's occupation was required for the construction of a road-under-bridge. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim right and title over government land. It is submitted that payment of water charges and municipal taxes cannot confer title over the government lands which are under illegal occupation and encroachment. It is also submitted that the petitioner, along with others, has threatened the 5th respondent when the 5th respondent visited the area for verification. The 5th respondent was threatened with dire consequences, and the petitioner and others threatened to file cases under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities (POA) Act in the event the petitioner's possession is disturbed.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submit that the petitioner has sold the alternate accommodation provided by the respondents as rehabilitation and resurfaced it over the government irrigation land. It is submitted that no relief can be granted as the petitioner has not submitted any documents to establish his title.
The petitioner has filed a reply denying the allegations in the counter, and specifically states that the petitioner has 130 square yards of land. It is also stated in the reply that the respondents have identified 37 encroachments in the affected area and tax assessments were removed for 36 houses except the petitioner’s house. It is submitted that the petitioner’s house is still assessed for tax and, as such, cannot be branded as an encroacher.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the material on record.
The petitioner has not submitted any valid document or appropriate proceedings that would confer the petitioner's right to occupy the subject property. Admittedly, the petitioner has not stated as to how the petitioner’s ancestors were in occupation of the property. The petitioner also failed to file any additional documents, more so when respondent No.3 has taken a specific stand that the petitioner is an encroacher on the government irrigation canal land.
It is also not in dispute that the respondent authorities have allotted a residential unit under the JNNURM Housing Scheme in the name of the petitioner’s wife when the property in possession of the petitioner was required for construction of a railway overbridge. The petitioner, having been allotted a residential unit for the displacement from the encroached property, cannot resurface on the government irrigation land and claim a stay as a matter of fundamental right.
The petitioner has failed to establish his bona fide right to the subject land, and, as such, he is not entitled to any relief. In light of these considerations, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.