B. MOHAN NAIDU Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As there was no representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner on 11/2/2021, it was directed to be listed after 10 days. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record.

(2.) One B. Mohan Naidu filed the present Public Interest Litigation under Sec. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(3.) A perusal of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of PIL would show that there is an R&B road passing through the lands in Sy. Nos. 123 and 125/3. It is said that, in the year 1990, the Tahsildar granted assignment of house site pattas to Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 and others in the roadside margin. When they encroached on to the public road, the villagers made an application to Respondent No. 2, who after conducting enquiry, passed an Order, on 16/11/1992, cancelling the assignment made to the beneficiaries and consequently, directed the Tahsildar to allot alternative house sites to the alleged encroachers and further directed to evict them from the above two survey numbers. It is said that in spite of such an Order being passed, there was no action from the Respondents. The inaction on the part of the Respondents, aided the unofficial Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 encroach on to the public road and cause obstruction and inconvenience to the villagers, who use the said road for walking, driving vehicles, carts etc. It is said that when the villagers questioned the illegal encroachments, false cases were being foisted against them. Thereafter, on 25/9/2017 and 20/10/2017, the villagers made a representation to Respondent No. 1, but there was no proper response. Hence, the present Public Interest Litigation is filed seeking the relief referred to above.