Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pilli Lakshmana Rao And Ors. vs Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat And ... on 16 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: 2000(5)ALT246
Author: B.V. Ranga Raju
Bench: B.V. Ranga Raju
ORDER N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. Since 1997, the State and other authorities started taking action for demolition, dispossession or eviction of unauthorised constructions or occupants. The persons who are in occupation of such premises filed these Writ Petitions. Though separate orders have been issued in some of these. Writ petitions, since the question involved in Writ Petitions numbering more than 800 which were grouped as cases pertaining to demolition is almost identical, common arguments were heard on both sides which will be dealt with a little later. Though the general contentions of the petitioners in most of these Writ Petitions are identical in nature, the State has taken a stand, according to the learned Advocate- General, that they vary. To avoid confusion, we classified the cases grouped under 'demolition' into four groups viz., Writs filed seeking a Mandamus against the respondents not to evict the petitioners, writs filed seeking directions that the respondents shall the encroachments for the purpose of widening the roads and the other hand, to consider the request for assignment or such unauthorised portion of the premises in their possession. The third group relates to writs filed seeking regularisation of unauthorised constructions without insisting on compliance of zonal regulations for applicability of master plan, but to regularise such constructions by collecting the necessary fee or by permitting to compound the offence. The fourth category pertains to writs filed seeking a Mandamus to direct the authorities neither to evict the occupants nor to demolish the constructions.
2. On behalf of the State, the learned Advocate-General appeared. Wherever the municipality or other local authority is the respondent, chair respective Stating Counsel also appeared and submitted their arguments.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the petitioner/s is are referred to as occupants and the respondents are referred as authorities. The greivance of the occupant/s is that the property in question is his/their private property. He/they has/ have been in enjoyment the said property since a long time; he/they had invested huge sums of money on the said property and as such he/they is/are entitled to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property. In case, the authorities feel that the property which is in possession of the occupant/s is either a Government property or any communal property the occupant/s is/are entitled for its assignment or grant or virtue of his/their long standing possession and enjoyment. Further, it is stated that even otherwise, he/ they had perfected his/their title by way of prescription. In spite of this position, the respondents resorted to/ are resorting to dispossess the occupants from his/their possession or enjoyment of the property in question. According to him/them in some other cases, the authorities even resorted to demolish the existing structures, which were put up by investing huge sums of money on the ground that the occupant/s is/are an and the constructions, if any, put up are all unauthorised. It is the further case of the occupant/s that there are not be any eviction, dispossession, demolition or taking over possession of the property by the Government unless the person in occupation is notified and heard in the matter to decree whether the disputed premises belongs to the Government or the occupant and then only a decision can be taken as to demolition etc., in accordance with law.
4. In the case of Private property, the occupant/s should be paid just and reasonable compensation. It is also contended that the premises in question is the only property of the occupant/s and if he/they is/are dispossessed, great hardship, irreparable loss and injury will be caused and further, the threat of the authorities at if the occupant/s does/do not vacate the premises, he/they will be forcibly evicted or dispossessed and wherever structures are put up, the same will be demolished, is not on arbitrary, but is an act of high-handedness on the peace of the authorities. Thus contending, the occupant/s sought the Writ Petition be allowed.
5. The learned Advocate-General appearing for the State submitted that the authorities had to take steps to get the roads widened within a particular period; to remove encroachments on Government properties; to demolish or remove only the unauthorised portions. The above acts were undertaken only in the public interest. To give effect to the same, steps were taken that too only in a few cases. In most of the cases, neither eviction nor demolition nor dispossession was given effect to. according to the learned Advocate-General, the occupation by some of the occupants or others concerned of the premises in question is an objectionable one as it obstructs the free flow of vehicular traffic and causes congestion. It is also contended that even in the case of demolition, the occupant/s cannot complain that the demolition is illegal. All that he/they is/are entitled to do is to take back the material used to put up the structures. In cases of eviction or dispossession from agricultural lands, the occupant/s is/are entitled only to harvest the standing crop of the period in question and the occupant/s cannot make a demand for compensation or for damages. The allegations made by the occupant/s and other similarly situate persons are all baseless and are liable to be rejected. Since widening of roads or asking to vacate the Government land is in the public interest, the occupant/s and other persons similarly situate who have approached this Court seeking similar reliefs should have borne in mind the fact that the State is also acting in their interest as they are also part of the society. He lastly contended that the averments made in the Writ Petition are far from truth and any eviction, dispossession or demolition will be done only in accordance with law. According to him, the present Writ Petition and other similar Writ Petitions are mis-conceived and they deserve to be dismissed.
6. Though this writ Petition and many other Writ Petitions are premature, as they have been filed in the absence of any specific orders of eviction or dispossession or demolition, in order to see that the interest of both the parties is safe guarded, we do not like to dismiss the Writ Petition and we dispose of the Writ Petition directing the authorities to take appropriate action complying with the observations to be made by us in this regard.
7. When a property is required for public purpose viz., for widening of roads or for any other purpose, the authorities straightaway cannot take the law into their hands and jump into the premises and attempt to evict the occupants or dispossess them or demolish their property. Before taking any such action, the authorities concerned shall issue a notice notifying as to the nature of the property, the purpose for which it is required, to whom it belongs and the action proposed calling for explanation or objections, if any, from the occupants and after considering the said objections or explanation, the authorities shall pass appropriate orders, if necessary, by giving oral hearing wherever there is a dispute as to the ownership of the property. In cases where demolition has already taken place, the authorities that barring a few cases, in most of the cases which we came across and dealt with separately, no separate orders of eviction, dispossession or demolition as the case may be, have been passed. In cases of demolition also, they were not preceded by any order or notice of demolition. The complaint of the occupant/s though looks misconceived but after hearing the arguments. We found that there was an attempt by the Government either to widen the roads or clear the encroachments. But in our view, before doing that, the authorities have to follow certain Principles of natural Justice. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the State to take action, if it so desires, after complying with the following requirements.
8. If the authorities, viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Executive Officer of local authority want to take any action of eviction, dispossession or demolition, first they shall issue a notice to the occupant/s calling upon him/them to show-cause as to why the proposed action shall not be taken. In receipt of such objections or explanation, if there is any objection as to the ownership of the property, the Mandal Revenue Officer or other authorities concerned shall determine the extent of encroachment or unauthorised occupation and shall determine whether the property in question belongs to the Government or any other local self Government authority or to the occupant/s. In case of demolition of the private property, the Mandal Revenue Officer or other authorities concerned shall determine the loss caused to the occupant/s on the basis of the assessment to be made by the engineer of Roads and Buildings Department On such assessment of damages, the Mandal Revenue Officer or the concerned authority shall take appropriate steps to disburse the amount qualified forthwith. If the demolition took place is in respect of the property of the Government, the question of payment of damages will not arise. The occupant/ s is/are entitled to remove the material used for the construction. The Mandal Revenue Officer shall issue a notice within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order calling upon the claimant/occupant/s to show-cause as to why the action proposed shall not be taken by giving 60 days time to file the objections, if any. The person interested viz., the occupant/s shall submit him/their objections or explanation within the time stipulated together with any other documents he/they would like to rely upon in support of his their case. On receipt of such explanation/objections and documents, if any, the Mandal Revenue Officer or the concerned authority shall consider the same, if necessary, by giving an oral hearing and then pass appropriate orders within three months thereafter. In case of any enquiry, the same should be conducted in a summary way and the occupant/s shall produce all the evidence which he/they wants/want to rely upon before the Mandal Revenue Officer on the appointed day.
9. If there is any claim for grant or assignment of the property, the concerned officer shall consider the same in accordance with law taking into consideration the eligiblity and the entitlement of the occupant/s. In cases of demolition, the loss caused shall have to be assessed by the Engineer of the area concerned, who, before assessing/ shall visit the premises along with the Officer concerned and the occupant/s or the person/s interest on the date notified by the concerned officer. The occupant/s shall appear before the concerned autority on all the dates in order to complete the enquiry at an early date. Till the conclusion of the enquiry by the Mandal Revenue Officer status-quo obtaining as on today shall continue.
10. Wherever an Advocate Commissioner is appointed and executed the warrant and produced his report, his fee, in such a case is fixed at Rs. 500/- to be borne equally by the occupant/s and the State by depositing the same before the concerned District Judge within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. On such deposit, the Commissioner is entitled to withdraw the said amount with the permission of the learned District Judge. Wherever the Commissioner has produced his report, a copy of the same shall be made available to the parties, if they so choose, on payment of the usual charges.
11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of All other contentions are kept open.