( 1 ) THE petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering their cases for allotment of house sites in Block No. 1, TS. No. 5, comprised in an extent of Ac. 1-32 cents at Siddartha Nagar Slum of Visakhapatnam, as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional. ( 2 ) THE brief facts relating to the claim of the petitioners are as under:- the land in TS. No,5 admeasuring Ac. 9-54 cents was held initially by one Sri M. T. Raju. Out of this, an extent of Ac. 2-54 cents is said to have been occupied by 210 slum dwellers. Proceedings to acquire the land in TS. No. 5 were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1979. They could not, however, materialize. Thereafter, the owner of the land sold it to M/s. Vijaya Cooperative House Building Society (for short the Society ). ( 3 ) VISAKHAPATNAM Municipal Corporation, the 1st respondent, initiated proceedings under the A. P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act 1956 (for short the Act) in respect of this very land. Successive notifications contemplated under Section 3 thereof were issued between 1987 and 1991. The Society filed W. P. No. 2599/1992. The parties therein, including the slum dwellers entered into a compromise. One of the important terms was that the acquisition under the Act be restricted to 50% of the area under the occupation of the slum dwellers and the rest of it, be permitted to be retained by the Society. The writ petition was disposed of on 10-4-2001, in terms of the compromise. The result is that Ac. 1-32 cents of land in TS. No. 5 came to be acquired under the Act. As many as 210 beneficiaries were identified vis--vis the land. The petitioners herein, 45 in number, were included in the list of 210 beneficiaries. ( 4 ) IN the recent past, the Union and the State Government have introduced schemes for improvement of slums. Visakhapatnam was identified as one of the cities for being made slum free. The Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY) (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) was introduced. Under this scheme, financial assistance is to be extended to the persons, living in the slums to bring about permanent and regular constructions. So far as the land of Ac. 1-32 cents in Ts. The Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY) (hereinafter referred to as the scheme) was introduced. Under this scheme, financial assistance is to be extended to the persons, living in the slums to bring about permanent and regular constructions. So far as the land of Ac. 1-32 cents in Ts. No. 5 is concerned, the scheme provided for construction of dwelling units, each at a cost of Rs. 50,000. 00. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 is extended as subsidy. The beneficiary is required to contribute Rs. 5,000. 00 and an amount of Rs. 20,000. 00 is arranged as loan. ( 5 ) WITH a view to implement the scheme in Ts. No. 5, respondents 1 and 2 prepared a list of beneficiaries. The names of the petitioners were omitted, on the ground that they are not below poverty line. The petitioners contend that in the name of implementation of the Scheme, the rights accrued to them under the orders of this court in recognition of their continued occupation of the land, are sought to be denied. They contend that their rights are inseparable from other occupants of the land. According to them, if they are not eligible to be extended the financial assistance in the form of subsidy on account of their being above poverty line, at the most they may be required to pay the corresponding amount, but there cannot be any justification to drive them out of the place in their occupation. ( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the Scheme is meant only for the benefit of persons below the poverty line and that the petitioners, who undisputedly do not fall into that category, cannot be extended the benefit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioners are in occupation of part of the land in TS. No. 5. Their names figured in the list of 210 persons, who were identified as the occupants of Ac. 2-54 cents in that survey number. Under a settlement, in terms of which W. P. No. 2599/92 was disposed of by this court, the rights of the 210 beneficiaries were confined to half of the land. No. 5. Their names figured in the list of 210 persons, who were identified as the occupants of Ac. 2-54 cents in that survey number. Under a settlement, in terms of which W. P. No. 2599/92 was disposed of by this court, the rights of the 210 beneficiaries were confined to half of the land. The present dispute is only as regards the extension of the benefit under the scheme to the petitioners. The basis for denial of the scheme to the petitioners is their economic status. The respondents contend that all the petitioners are employed in one organization or the other and cannot be treated as beneficiaries under the scheme. ( 8 ) NO difficulty as such would have arisen if the implementation of the scheme involved in, nothing more than extension of financial benefit. Since the petitioners do not dispute that they are not below the poverty line, they cannot be extended such benefit. However, the purport of the scheme is that with the financial assistance as indicated above, dwelling units are to be constructed in the area identified as slum under the occupation of the dwellers thereof. The scheme does not contemplate eviction of persons in occupation of any land, on the ground that their economic status is above poverty line. ( 9 ) IN a way, the scheme contemplates two aspects, viz. , recognition of the occupancy rights of the persons in slum area and extension of financial benefit. The thrust behind the scheme is to ensure that systematic and hygienic units are brought about, in the place of irregular and unhygienic units are brought about, in the place of irregular and unhygienic hutments. The constructions are required to be made in the areas so identified. ( 10 ) IT may be true that the economic status of the petitioners had improved over the years on account of their securing employment or other factors. In the normal course of things, where the rights of individuals in a slum are yet to be crystallized or recognized, the implementing agency may be entitled to exclude such of the persons who are not below the poverty line for the purpose of extending the benefit under the scheme. In the present case, the rights of the petitioners and several others came to be recognized by this Court. All of them were in occupation of an extent of Ac. 2-54 cents. In the present case, the rights of the petitioners and several others came to be recognized by this Court. All of them were in occupation of an extent of Ac. 2-54 cents. They are parties to a collective decision, reducing their entitlement to half of the area. A right, which has so accrued to them and recognized by this court, cannot be denied on the sole ground that they have improved their economic condition. ( 11 ) ONE of the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents is that they would take steps to implement the scheme by setting apart the proportionate extent of land for the petitioners. Though this may appear to be logically correct, in effect, it may subvert the scheme itself. If about 1/4th of the area is left to be undeveloped, and the slum is permitted to be continued in that area, the very object of the scheme would be defeated. The scheme has the twin objects of eradication of slums and extension of financial benefits. Permitting a substantial area to remain undeveloped would defeat the 1st object. If the development of such area does not involve any additional financial burden, there should not be any plausible objection. The petitioners can be denied the financial benefit of subsidy since they are not below the poverty line. If the corresponding area belonging to the petitioners is also developed in the same manner as rest of the area, without burdening the State, the prima object of the scheme would be advanced. In all fairness, the petitioners have come forward not to claim any financial assistance in the form of subsidy. If the area under the occupation of the petitioners, which is contained in Ac. 1-32 cents, is left undeveloped, the project itself may become unviable and unworkable. ( 12 ) UNDER these circumstances the writ petition is allowed with the following directions: 1. The respondents shall undertake construction of the same type of dwelling units for the benefit of the petitioners also, in the land in Ts. No. 5 admeasuring Ac. 1-32 cents; 2. The petitioners shall not be entitled for the subsidy, provided for under the Scheme. The feasibility of arranging loans to them may however be considered if it is otherwise permissible. 3. The petitioners shall initially deposit an amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 each with the respondents. No. 5 admeasuring Ac. 1-32 cents; 2. The petitioners shall not be entitled for the subsidy, provided for under the Scheme. The feasibility of arranging loans to them may however be considered if it is otherwise permissible. 3. The petitioners shall initially deposit an amount of Rs. 30,000. 00 each with the respondents. In case the loan is not sanctioned within 3 months from today, they shall deposit the balance of Rs. 20,000. 00 also with the respondents; 4. The petitioners shall vacate the areas under their occupation, within 3 weeks from today and hand over the same to the respondents; and 5. On completion of the construction, the respondents shall allot the dwelling units to the petitioners along with other beneficiaries, on ensuring that nothing is due from them towards cost of construction viz. , Rs. 50,000. 00 per unit. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 13 ) THAT Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Honble Sri. Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Friday the Twenty Seventh Day of February, Two Thousand and Four.