K. SUNDER RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel representing Mr.K.Manik Prabhu-learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr.G.L.Nageswara Rao, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) By an order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the learned single Judge, the writ petition filed by the petitioners/appellants came to be dismissed. The case of the writ petitioners is that the respondents were trying to evict them without notice from their shops situated in Sy.No.207/2 of Kasibugga Palasa Municipality, Srikakulam District. It is stated that 34 petitioners had put up small wooden bunks or shops and carrying on their professions, such as, barbar, laundry, shoe making, tailoring, electrical repairs, watch and cell mechanic and small tea stalls etc., and that survey No.207/2 is away from road margin. It is also stated that Kasibugga village was formerly known as Parasamba and it was in Tarla estate, which was abolished under A.P.Estate Abolition Act, 1948 and subsequently taken over by the Government. The ancestors of the petitioners were in possession of the aforesaid sites in question and, as such, they are in continuous occupation of the same sites. When the KT road-Kasibugga widening operations were taken up, the writ petitioners were not disturbed as their sites were located beyond road margin and not causing any obstruction to the free flow of traffic. It is pleaded that in the last week of September, 2011, the 3rd respondent along with his staff had visited their area and started telling every shop or buddy owner to vacate the premises and threatened all of them that if they fail to vacate the premises, they will demolish their shops and cases will be filed against them for occupying the Government land. With that imminent threat of eviction looming large, the petitioners came before this Court with a prayer that action of the respondents in trying to evict the petitioners from their shops is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and that direction be issued to grant them pattas on payment of basic value of such sites.

(3.) Learned single Judge observed that the petitioners had obtained benefit of allotment of alternative occupation to carry on their business after their eviction from the land in dispute.