PILLI LAKSHMANA RAO Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(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.