1 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 APHC010289202012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25247/2012 Between: 1. P. PERAIAH S/O DEVADANAM, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK KAREEMULLAH, S/O. KALESHA, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. T. SRINIVASA RAO S/O VENKATESWARLU, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. P. SESHAGIRI RAO S/O VENKAIAH, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. Y. RAMA RAO S/O NAGESWARA RAO, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. S. LAXMA REDDY S/O SUBBA REDDY, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. T. JALAIAH S/O VENKATESWARLU, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 8. P. SRINIVASA RAO S/O SUBBA RAO, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 9. SMT. K. JAYA W/O K. SANJEEV KUMAR, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 10. UPPU VENKATESWARLU S/O RAGHAVAIAH, R/O. RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER AT ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS TOWN PLANNING OFFICER AT ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 3. GADDAM POTHRAJU S/O SIVARAMAIAH, OCC:- AGRICULTURE, R/O. V LANE, RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 4. KAVARTHAPU SRINIVASA RAO S/O PEDDA NARASIMHULU, OCC:- AGRICULTURE, R/O. II LANE, RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. K VENUGOPALA KRISHNA MURTHY S/O PITCHAIAH SASTRY, OCC:- AGRICULTURE, R/O.III LANE, RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. NALLAMOLU RADHA KRISHNA MURTHY S/O VENKATA SWAMY, OCC:- AGRICULTURE, R/O. VI LANE, RAMNAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT RR 3 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER C.O DT 11/11/16 IN WPMP.1577/14 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the endorsement vide Roc. No. 3656/12/G1 dt. 10.5.2012 issued by the 1st respondent as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same. IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 32194 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective abodes situate in Lane Nos. 1 to 9 situate in Sy. Nos. 54/1, 54/2, 54/3, 55/1, 55/2, 55/3, 55/4A, 55/4B, 56/1, 562, 56/3, 62/1, 62/2, 62/7, 67/1A, 57/2, 3 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 Ramnagar, Ongole Town, Pralcasam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 1577 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioners as Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in WP No. 25247/2012, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 145143 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP 4692 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in WPMP.No.32194 of 2012 in W.P.No.25247 of 2012, dated 14.08.2012, pending disposal of the writ petition IA NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP 51353 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased topermit the petitioner to come on record as petititoner No.11 as LR of Writ Petition No.5 in the above writ petition IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 1814 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners to implead the proposed respondents as respondent Nos. 7 to 9 in WP.No. 25247/2012 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SANTHISREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BOBBA VIJAYALAKSHMI 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 4 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 ORDER: 1. The petitioners are claiming the right and ownership over the land in their possession, more fully described as Lane Nos.1 to 9, situated in Survey Nos.54/1, 54/2, 54/3, 55/1, 55/2, 55/3, 55/4A, 55/4B, 56/1, 56/2, 56/3, 62/1, 62/2, 62/7, 67/1A and 57/2, Ramnagar, Ongole Town. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners belong to financially backward communities and some of them belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities. It is submitted that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of small extents of lands in the above survey numbers and have been conducting their business for the last forty years. It is submitted that the petitioners’ forefathers had also purchased the property under unregistered agreements of sale and that the petitioners have obtained electricity connections and are paying taxes. It is submitted that the petitioners had filed W.P.No.238 of 2010 before this Court when the respondents attempted to dispossess the petitioners. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 18.01.2012 granting liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the concerned authorities and further directed the authorities to dispose of the said representation. 3. It is submitted that the petitioners submitted a representation which resulted in issuance of the endorsement dated 10.05.2012. The impugned endorsement determined that the petitioners are illegally occupying public 5 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 properties and rejected their case for regularizing their possession and occupation. The petitioners were also granted liberty to approach the Tahsildar/RDO for allotment of house sites under the housing scheme. In pursuance of the said endorsement, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 02.06.2012, and that the same is pending consideration. It is submitted that the petitioners cannot be dispossessed after having been in possession for several decades. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the Ongole Cooperative Building Society intends to evict the petitioners and construct a commercial shopping complex. It is submitted that when the petitioners are alleged to have been in illegal occupation of a public place, the Ongole Cooperative Building Society ought not to be permitted to construct any shopping complex at the cost of the livelihood of the petitioners. 4. The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that petitioners are occupying a green belt area and the society also does not have any right to construct any shopping complex in the green belt area or in any other area earmarked for public purposes. It is submitted that the petitioners have not produced any documents before any of the authorities to substantiate their claim over the property. It is also submitted that the efforts to reclaim the green belt area are constantly being countered by the petitioners by approaching this Court. It is submitted that the petitioners are conducting businesses on the roads, causing 6 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 inconvenience to the general public. It is also stated that the municipality has not regularized their occupation and that issuance of ration cards or Aadhar ID cards would not in any manner confer title in favor of the petitioners nor regularize their occupation of the public property. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6 submits that erstwhile members of the society intended to construct a shopping complex and had entered into a lease agreement, which was subsequently cancelled. It is also submitted that the petitioners had filed O.S.No.164 of 1990 before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, seeking permanent injunction restraining the society from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the suit was dismissed on 31.08.1998 by observing that the plaintiffs are encroachers and trespassers and are not entitled for any relief. It is submitted that the findings of the trial court have attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.3 to 6 are not permitted to conduct any business over the said green belt area and that the petitioners would have to be evicted for reclaiming the green belt area. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6. Perused the record. 7 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 7. As seen from the record, the petitioners have not placed any document to prima facie consider their case as valid occupants of the land claimed by them. The petitioners have admitted that they have been conducting business for the last four decades and have sought regularization of their occupation and submitted representations to the authorities for such regularization. The impugned endorsement dated 10.05.2012 has also described the petitioners as encroachers on the green belt area. The open spaces such as parks, playgrounds and roads in an approved layout automatically vest with the municipality, and it is for the municipality to maintain them. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach the Tahsildar/RDO, Ongole, for allotment of house sites. 8. This Court granted status quo to be maintained in respect of the possession of the petitioners on 14.08.2012. The petitioners, apart from producing the letter dated 02.06.2012, which was submitted to the authority and was forwarded to the District Collector, have also sought regularization of the lands in possession of the petitioners. 9. Considering the submissions, it is evident that the petitioners are in occupation of the green belt area, which cannot be considered for grant of house sites by the State. It is the duty and responsibility of the respondent authorities to reclaim the green belt area and restore it to the purpose for which the land was left open. The petitioners shall be granted liberty to approach the Tahsildar/RDO and seek grant of house sites and to the legal 8 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 heirs of those petitioners to approach Tahsildar/RDO, pending consideration of the Tahsildar/RDO would in no way preclude the respondents in removing the encroachments in the green belt area. 10. With these observations the present writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:13.11.2025 NKA 9 HN, J W.P.No.25247_2012 206 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 25247 of 2012 Date: 13.11.2025 NKA