1 APHC010014362014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 28589/2014 Between: Khizre Alam Mohammed, S/o. Sharif Inayatul Rehman, ...PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V VENU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. CH VENKAT RAMAN The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.2 in taking immediate steps to stop the illegal and unauthorized construction activity and not demolishing the illegal constructions on the property belongs to the petitioner in open land in Sy.No.671/1, situated at Pedana, Pedana Municipality, Krishna District despite representations dated 20.08.2014 and 25.08.2014 submitted by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct respondent No.2 to demolish the illegal structures …...” 2. When the matter came up for admission on 17.10.2014, this Court passed the following interim order: “….In this view of the matter, the 2nd respondent is directed to ensure that no constructions are made in the subject property by the 3rd respondent or persons claiming through him. There shall also be an interim direction directing respondent No.2 to take immediate action on the representations dated 20.08.2014 and 25.08.2014 submitted by the petitioner with regard to unauthorized constructions carried out in open land in Sy.No.671/1, situated at Pedana, Pedana Municipality, Krishna District.” 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agriculture land in an extent of Ac.2-50 cents in R.S.No.671/1A of Pedana, having acquired the same from his father on 18.09.1989. Since then, respondent No.3 has been cultivating the same without any obstruction from anybody. A pattadar passbook was also issued in his favour in the year 1998. Even though land acquisition proceedings were 3 initiated by the Government against respondent No.3 in respect of the property in R.S.No.671/1A, all correspondence was made with him only. Subsequently, those proceedings are dropped. Moreover, the donor of the petitioner has given a statement to the Government, confirming that he has no right over the property. The respondent No.3 sold some extents of land in Sy.No.671/1A to third parties in the years 2004, 2005 and 2011, and also gifted some extent of land to his daughter in the year 2008. In these transactions, respondent No.3 executed registered sale deeds and a gift deed, and since then, the purchasers have been in possession of their respective extents. It is further stated that the petitioner is claiming right in R.S.No.671/1, in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents only, whereas the land belonging to respondent No.3 is situated in R.S.No.671/1A. It is further stated that respondent No.3 sold some extents of land, and for the remaining land, he erected a fence to protect it from encroachers. However, it is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.3 has not made any constructions in the land. His purchasers have raised temporary sheds, but these purchasers were not shown as parties in the present petition. These purchasers have filed civil suits against the petitioner herein and have obtained interim injunction against him, but the petitioner has not shown them as parties, though they are necessary and proper parties as they are having right, interest and possession over their respective extents. Furthermore, respondent No.3 submits that he has not violated any laws or rules and has never raised any unauthorized construction in the land. Therefore, the issue of obtaining 4 permission from respondent No.2 does not arise. The petitioner has no legitimate claim or interest in the land in R.S.No.671/1A of Pedana. 4. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2 admitted that unofficial respondent No.3 had not been granted permission for making any construction in Sy.No.671/1, Pedana Village, Krishna District, which is, in fact, the open land of the petitioner. However, in compliance with the interim order granted by this Court, it is ensured that no constructions are made by respondent No.3 or persons claiming through him in Sy.No.671/1. 5. In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that respondent No.3 was not granted permission for making any construction in Sy.No.671/1 and it is also the specific case of respondent No.3 that he is not making any constructions in Sy.No.671/1 and his land is situated in Sy.No.671/1A, and the sheds were constructed in some extent of land in Sy.No.671/1A only by the persons who purchased the same from him. 6. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry as to whether any sheds have been constructed in Sy.No.671/1 by respondent No.3 or his purchasers and if so take appropriate action after duly conducting an enquiry and giving notice to respondent No.3 and the petitioner herein in accordance with law. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5 7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.02.2025 KGR