CH SOURI RAJA PERUMALLU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking steps to remove the unauthorized occupation and illegal constructions made by the unofficial respondent.

(2.) The petitioners before this Court seek a relief of Mandamus alleging that the 4th and 5th respondents have made illegal constructions. Number of representations which were made are highlighted. The reliance is placed on an endorsement given by the 3rd respondent that the land occupied by the 4th and 5th respondents in R.S.No.20/4 and 24/1 is identified as a 'municipal latrine land'.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K. Chidambaram argues that the 3rd respondent has already certified that the land occupied is municipal land earmarked for latrines. He also highlights the fact that the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Commissioner to consider the application and take appropriate action. Further endorsement, dated 08.08.2019, issued by the 3rd respondent is highlighted. In this endorsement the 3rd respondent has clearly informed the petitioners that they would be taking steps to remove the illegal encroachments in R.S.No.20/4 by the unofficial respondents. Learned counsel Sri K. Chidambaram stressed the fact that despite clear and categorical stand taken by the 3rd respondent they have not done anything further in the matter. It is his contention that the 3rdrespondent-Municipal Corporation has a duty cast upon it to remove the encroachments and unauthorized constructions. Learned counsel also highlights the fact that the unofficial respondents have wrongly included the Sy.No.17/9A in their document in order to get over the bar of registration under Section 22-A of the Registration Act.