K. Kistaiah v. State of A. P. , Reptd. by its District Collector
2013-11-08
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
body2013
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is admittedly in unauthorised possession of the Government land admeasuring Ac.0.35 guntas in Survey No.4 of Rayadurg Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, filed this Writ Petition seeking protection of this Court to his unlawful possession. A perusal of the record shows that when the respondents sought to hold public auction of the above-mentioned land on 17.09.2003, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.19511 of 2003. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 25.11.2010 with the following observations:- “Counsel for the petitioner and Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana area) submit that the auction was not held on 17.09.2003. In that view of the matter, there is no necessity to adjudicate the matter. However, the application of the petitioner, if any, for alienation of the said land in his favour as per the Government alienation rules may be considered if the petitioner is eligible and the land in possession is not required for any public purpose.” Thereafter, the petitioner blissfully continued in occupation of the Government land without troubling himself to approach the respondents with a request to alienate the land on the market value. The petitioner filed the present Writ Petition with the allegation that the staff of respondent No.2 came to the land on 05.11.2013 and tried to take possession of the same. Ordinarily, an encroacher of the Government land is not entitled to the protection of the Courts. When the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to get the land alienated on market value, he has done precious little towards that end. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for protection of his unlawful possession of a very valuable Government land which is situated within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limits. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.39804 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.