GARLA SUDHAKAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No. 16417 dated 11-9-1997, issued by the Executive Engineer, Nellore, Central Division. The writ petition also further seeks a declaration that the action of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in trying to disturb the petitioner's lease regarding the land in S.No. 259 of old Mallappa Kalva, near Sunday Market, Nellore, measuring 50 X 20 = 1000 Sq. Ft., as illegal.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner has been given the land bearing S.No. 259 of Old Mallappa Kalva, near Sunday Market, Nellore Town measuring 50 X 20 = 1000 Sq. ft, on the basis of the proceedings No. 16417 dated 11 -9-1997, by the Executive Engineer, Central Division, Nellore, for a period of one year from the date of the grant, for the purpose of a shop, for working as mechanic. The petitioner is the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste and even the Hon'ble Minister for Technical Education recommended the petitioner's case for allotment of the said land. The petitioner paid Rs. 5,000.00 and also paid Rs. 1300.00 as security deposit vide treasury challan No. 1755 and thereafter, the petitioner has been put in possession. Accordingly, the petitioner constructed sheds and shops by spending an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00. But on the influence of certain local politicians, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are intending to demolish his structures and abrogate the lease orders and are allotting the same to some other persons. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Police, but nothing has been done to protect the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court for violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner is dispossessed from this land, he would be put to great loss and hardship.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the same pleas and relyingupon some of the judgmentsof the Supreme Court, submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner isillegal and arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and accordingly he prayed that writ petition may be allowed.