MATHA GAVARAYYA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR E G DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not assigning the land situated in Sy.Nos.882, 964 to 967 of Bellampudi village, P. Gannavaram Mandal East Goda- vari District, an extent of Acs. 48.00 cms., as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to assign the land to the petitioners. The lands in question are admittedly Lanka lands.

(2.) Ms. Nanda, appearing for the Government Pleader for Revenue reiterates that since the above lands are Lanka lands, the rules prohibit the assignment of the said lands. The learned counsel further contends that since the lands are Government lands, the Government can exercise its rights in a manner it deems fit either to lease it out or assign in accordance with the governmental guidelines framed in that regard. She further argues, that when the lands are admittedly Government lands and when the petitioners admit that they had occupied the lands and that too without any authority of law, they are encroachers and for such 'encroachers no relief should be granted under Article 226 of Constitution of India on the ground that the relief which is to be granted under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is an equitable remedy and that the petitioners do not have any equities in their favour and that when the petitioners do not have any equities in their favour being encroachers, they cannot seek the protective orders from this court, which if granted, will result in sanction of illegal action and perpetuity thereof and that as such no relief can be granted to the petitioners as sought for.

(3.) 1 accede to the contention advanced by Ms. Nanda on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners do not claim any right or title to the above lands. Their claims is that they are landless poor persons and that they occupied the above lands and that they had been in possession since a long, and that therefore, their possession should be protected. Since the petitioners are not having any legal or valid right to be in possession and as they had occupied the above lands without any authority of law, I will not stretch my hand to help these petitioners. Further, these writ petitioners are said to have occupied the lands in question, forcibly, otherwise than due course of law, only after the suit for injunction was filed in O.S. No. 205 of 1978 by the Srinivasa Co-operative Collective Farming Society Limited, the third respondent herein. Admittedly, the Government had leased out the above lands in favour of the 3rd respondent during the year 1960 for the period up to 1976 and that was extended up to 1980. During the extended lease period, there was interference caused by the defendants who are 15 in number, and out of whom, 10 are the writ petitioners. The relief in the writ petition was to restrain the said defendants inclusive of these writ petitioners from interfering with the possession of the 3rd respondent herein over the above lands. The said suit was decreed by judgment dt. 28-2-1986 by the court of the District Munsif, Kothapeta. , The same was also confirmed in the Appeal Suit No. 6 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Razole, and there was no second appeal preferred by the said defendants inclusive of these writ petitioners to this court, and as such, the decree of induction which was granted had become final. In the teeth of the said decree for injunction restraining these writ petitioners from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the 3rd respondent, the petitioners cannot say that they had been in possession since the year 1976. The very premise, on which the injunction decree was granted was on the finding that on the date of the institution of the suit, i.e., on 15-11-1978, the 3rd respondent was in possesion and not the petitioners. So, it can be safely concluded that the petitioners had encroached upon the said lands after the institution of suit and that is the actual contention of the 3rd respondent. I accept the said contention of the 3rd respondent, represented by its counsel Mr. R. V. Prasad, and as such, I cannot issue the writ as prayed for by the writ petitioners, and the same is liable to be dismissed.