APHC010724852017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Between: Sri P. Mohan Rao Prl. Secretary Revenue And 10 Others and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. LETTER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. A JAYANTHI CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 12.03.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) The representation forwarded to this Court has been taken up as Public Interest Litigation. 2. The petitioner submitted the said representation President of Rajiv Harijana Kristava S WP(PIL) No.189 of 2017 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WP(PIL) NO: 189/2017 ...PETITIONER AND Secretary Revenue And 10 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) GP FOR REVENUE (AP) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 12.03.2025 Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) The representation forwarded to this Court has been taken up as submitted the said representation claiming to be the President of Rajiv Harijana Kristava Sangham, Bapatla. HCJ, RCJ WP(PIL) No.189 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3483] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR The representation forwarded to this Court has been taken up as this claiming to be the HCJ, RCJ WP(PIL) No.189 of 2017 2 3. The contents of the representation, in brief, are that about 400 members of the Sangham occupied site belonging to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (for short, ‘APIIC’) and constructed houses. On 31.01.2008, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued orders for taking the site of Ac.8-33 cents belonging to APIIC on payment of Rs.1.00 lakh per acre by the Sangham and the same was accepted by the Chairman and Managing Director of APIIC. Though the petitioner had paid Rs.3.94 lakhs towards the site allotted to Sangham in favour of Deputy Zonal Manager, APIIC, Guntur, the site was not registered in the name of the Sangham. Though the Court passed orders in Writ Petition No. 26708 of 2010 for allotment of Ac.8-33 cents of land to members of Sangham, the Government passed orders for allotment of Ac.3-94 cents only, which is quite inadequate for houses of nearly 400 members of the Sangham. 4. The contents of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos.9-11, APIIC, in brief, are that the Joint Inspection conducted by Revenue and APIIC authorities disclosed that Ac.3-94 cents was under occupation of members of the Sangham and based on that report the Sangham was directed to pay Rs.3-94 lakhs for the encroached portion of the land at the rate of Rs.1.00 lakh per acre, which accordingly, was paid to APIIC. Thereafter, the District Collector issued proceedings stating that the land has to be registered in the name of the Sangham, which in turn has to be given to the beneficiaries, so, HCJ, RCJ WP(PIL) No.189 of 2017 3 names of all the beneficiaries should be mentioned in the Registered deed and if agreed, the Sangham may be made as society duly incorporating all the eligible beneficiaries as society members. The APIIC officials with the assistance of the Village Revenue Officer enumerated the houses and on such enumeration it came to light that 124 members have been residing in the colony, which was accordingly submitted to the District Collector for taking further action. Thereafter, disputes arose between the beneficiaries and the petitioner, resulting in filing of suits in O.S.No.60 of 2013 by some of the beneficiaries and O.S.No.69 of 2017 by the petitioner and the suits are pending on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Bapatla. Moreover, one Mallela Yesaiah and others, representing the encroachers filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.32177 of 2014, whereas the petitioner filed writ petition vide W.P.No.40368 of 2014 to register the land of Ac.3.94 cents in his favour and allot Ac.8.33 cents instead of Ac.3.94 cents to the society. The writ petitions are pending. Mallela Yesaiah, one of the writ petitioners in W.P.No.32177 of 2014 also made a payment of Rs.3,19,000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Tahsildar. The APIIC is not having any vacate land at Industrial Park, Bapatla, except Ac.3-94 cents which was already under the occupation of members of the society and the APIIC is ready to either register the land in favour of petitioner or to surrender the land to Revenue Department for issue of pattas to the individual occupants. HCJ, RCJ WP(PIL) No.189 of 2017 4 Unless a compromise is made in between the president of the society and its members who are actually in occupation of the land, the issue would not be settled. 5. Perusal of the pleadings make it clear that the petitioner is seeking allotment of Ac.8.33 cents of land to members of the Sangham, since the extent of Ac.3.94 cents of land granted by the Government is insufficient to provide houses to 400 members of the society. It is the specific case of the APIIC that except the extent of Ac.3-94 cents which had already been under occupation of members of the society, the APIIC is not having any vacant land at that place. The contents of the counter-affidavit would further make it clear that some of the encroachers filed suit vide O.S.No.60 of 2013, whereas the petitioner filed O.S.No.69 of 2017 and the said suits are pending consideration on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla. It is also evident that the petitioner filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.40368 of 2014 to register the land in an extent of Ac.3-94 cents in his favour and further to allot Ac.8-33 cents of land instead of Ac.3.94 cents of land to their Sangham. Further, some of the encroachers filed writ petition No.32177 of 2014 and as per the directions given therein, they paid an amount of Rs.3,19,000/- by way of Demand Draft in favour of Tahsildar. Both the writ petitions are pending consideration before this Court. HCJ, RCJ WP(PIL) No.189 of 2017 5 6. In view of the above, since this Public Interest Litigation is followed by civil suits as well as writ petitions, one filed by the petitioner and another by one of the encroachers in relation to the same subject matter and it appears there are differences of opinion between the petitioner and some of the encroachers, this public interest litigation can be closed, leaving it open to the parties to redress their grievance before Civil and writ Courts in the pending matters. 7. Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR