JUDGMENT M Venkata Ramana, J. - The writ petitioners are questioning the alleged action of the respondents 3 to 6, by which they alleged that they would be dispossessed from their houses upon their demolition, which are all located at Gurralamadugu Sangam, Muthukuru Road, Nellore. 2. The petitioners are daily wagers eking out their livelihood as construction workers in the activity of construction, painting, laying tiles, wood polishing etc. They are residing in their respective houses at Gurralamadugu Sangam, Nellore. They also stated that their forefathers occupied small extents of site abutting eastern bank of Sarvepalli canal that runs North-South. 3. Nellore Balancing Reservoir was constructed about more than 100 years ago across the Penna River in order to provide irrigation facilities to the southern delta under the Penna River. Sarvepalli canal takes off this reservoir on the south passing through Nellore municipal corporation area. 4. The petitioners claim that on account of the expansion of Nellore town, though there was no human habitation earlier on the banks of Sarvepalli canal, several colonies came up and their forefathers migrated from their original places to Balaji Nagar area, Nellore, occupied the site abutting the eastern bank of Sarvepalli canal and raised thatched houses. A few of them also constructed RCC structures and some others raised structures with asbestos roof. Their possession, according to the petitioners was recognised by Nellore municipal corporation. They have who are also issued Aadhaar cards. 5. The specific version of the petitioners is that, on 21.03.2021 the respondents 2 to 6 came to their locality and in the presence of the Minister for Irrigation, there was an interaction wherein they were informed that walls would be constructed on either side of Sarvepalli canal in order to beautify Nellore Town and directed them to vacate on or before 15.04.2021. It is also the version of the petitioners that in that interaction they were offered house sites and to construct house under housing schemes, that was agreeable. It is also the version of the petitioners that on that day, they informed the respondents that they would vacate the houses only upon providing house sites. 6. It is also the version of the petitioners that in that interaction they were offered house sites and to construct house under housing schemes, that was agreeable. It is also the version of the petitioners that on that day, they informed the respondents that they would vacate the houses only upon providing house sites. 6. However, it is the complaint of the petitioners that on 30.03.2021 the 6th respondent came along with his staff informing that the work relating to the walls would start immediately and since they require place to dump the material, wanted them to vacate the premises and in the event of refusal, they were informed that the respondents would get them vacated demolishing their houses with the help of police. 7. The petitioners claimed that they are entitled to get the benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) since they are the affected persons. Without such process of rehabilitation, according to the petitioners, they cannot be dispossessed from their respective sites. Thus, calling the proposed action of the respondents being illegal and arbitrary affecting their right to life, attracting Article-21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners required a declaration by means of this writ petition and not to dispossess without following the mandatory provisions of the above Act. 8. When this matter came up initially on 23.04.2021, in view of the undertaking of the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents that there would not be any demolition of the tenements of the petitioners, the same was recorded and this undertaking is in force. 9. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed by the 3 rd respondent questioning the maintainability of this writ petition. It is specifically contended for the respondents that all the petitioners are encroachers of the site of Sarvepalli canal in Nellore town. Denying that the petitioners are entitled for any benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it is stated that the constructions were raised by the petitioners upon encroachment of the site of the canal bund. 10. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that it is decided to construct retaining wall from 0.6 Kms to 3.00 kms covering Sarvepalli canal and that there is ayacut of 50,000 acres under Sarvepalli canal. 10. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that it is decided to construct retaining wall from 0.6 Kms to 3.00 kms covering Sarvepalli canal and that there is ayacut of 50,000 acres under Sarvepalli canal. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioners have been letting out sullage water from their houses, draining into the canal causing immense pollution to the system, about which the farmers under this ayacut made a representation to construct a retaining wall and stop pollution. 11. It is further stated in this counter-affidavit that the Government is proposing to formulate a policy to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards rent till new houses are completed, to be paid to all the encroachers, though they are not entitled for such concession. 12. It is also stated in this counter-affidavit that the petitioners raised structures and houses without proper foundation and that they are prone to collapse during rainy season on account of their location on canal bund due to soil sliding and unequal settlement of soil. Stating that there was no occasion to dispossess the petitioners, questioning the claim of the petitioners about their occupation of these sites for more than 50 years, it is requested to dismiss this writ petition. 13. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 14. Now, the following points arise for determination: 1. Whether the alleged threat of dispossession from the houses claimed by the petitioners by the respondents is true? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for rehabilitation and resettlement in terms of Act 30 of 2013? 3. To what relief the petitioners are entitled? POINT No.1: 15. The petitioners' houses or tenements are located on the eastern bund of Sarvepalli canal. This canal passes through Nellore municipal corporation limits, to irrigate the agricultural lands meeting the requirements of a part of Penna delta in Nellore district. The respondents stated that it is catering to the needs of about 50,000 acres, taking off from barrage constructed against the river Penna and from Nellore Balancing Reservoir, which is abutting Nellore town. It is a part of an old system admittedly being in use for about a century, according to the petitioners. 16. The houses or tenements raised by the petitioners are seen in the photographs filed along with the counter-affidavit. It is a part of an old system admittedly being in use for about a century, according to the petitioners. 16. The houses or tenements raised by the petitioners are seen in the photographs filed along with the counter-affidavit. Many appear to be regular RCC structures, while a few have sheet roofs. The manner in which these houses are located on the canal bund as seen from these photographs gives an indication of the manner by which they are raised. Thus, it is manifest that canal bund on the eastern side was occupied and structures were raised. These houses did contribute for draining sullage water from their respective tenements, causing damage to the eco-system thereat on account of piling up of garbage etc. 17. Thus, the effect of pollution so caused on account of location of these structures and their use as human habitations, did give an indication that it is immense. It would not only affect the petitioners who have been living on this bund but also the residents of Nellore Town as well as the users of this irrigation canal. When the purpose of this canal is to cater needs of 50,000 acres, as rightly pointed out for the respondents, the ultimate users of this canal system viz., the farmers, would be the worst sufferers. It is also a health hazard having great potential for spread of several diseases, mainly water born. 18. On behalf of the respondents, the extent to which the water in this canal was polluted is sought to be demonstrated by Water Analysis Report issued by Hema Aqua Lab, Nellore. This Water Analysis Report relates to 14.04.2021. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to contend that this water analysis report is fabricated, the location of the houses of the petitioners, the manner by which this canal is being treated by them reflected from the photographs produced by the respondents, certainly would lead to infer the extent of the pollution this canal suffers. This water analysis report is only supplementing such inference. 19. As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, all these factors cannot be brushed aside and that they have a great bearing when considered from the point of view of the sufferance, at present available at this Gurralamadugu Sangam and canal. 20. Location of these houses is also a cause for concern. 19. As pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, all these factors cannot be brushed aside and that they have a great bearing when considered from the point of view of the sufferance, at present available at this Gurralamadugu Sangam and canal. 20. Location of these houses is also a cause for concern. As rightly contended for the respondents because of loosening of the soil at the canal bund, since the structures are perching on the top of this canal bund, they would collapse. Particularly when water is flowing to full level in this canal, this danger is perceptibly immense. 21. Therefore, raising retaining wall on either side of this canal, in an attempt to strengthen and for free passage of water, it is a necessity, the importance of which is considered by the authorities. When the situation at the ground level is commanding these requirements, the petitioners who are encroachers on the canal bund cannot insist for reparation by means of rehabilitation and resettlement. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Section 3(c)(vi) of Act 30 of 2013 contending that rehabilitation and resettlement of the owners of the land and other affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or other families affected by such acquisition is necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that these petitioners fall within the scope of 'families affected' by acquisition and therefore, appropriate measures of rehabilitation of the petitioners be undertaken by the respondents and till then, they should not be subjected to any coercive process including demolition or removal of their houses from the present location. Second schedule of Act 30 of 2013 is also referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners contending that all the affected families are entitled for the benefits stated therein. 23. The petitioners are not the owners of the land on their own showing. Their sites are not being acquired. The proposal is to raise retaining wall abutting the canal. Admittedly, the canal bund is a part of Government land and a structure like bund itself supports the canal so excavated. Any encroachment upon such canal bund, cannot be permitted. Not only the municipal authorities but also the authorities concerned to the Irrigation department represented by the respondents are responsible, since they allowed the structures to be raised and remain on the ground. 24. Any encroachment upon such canal bund, cannot be permitted. Not only the municipal authorities but also the authorities concerned to the Irrigation department represented by the respondents are responsible, since they allowed the structures to be raised and remain on the ground. 24. This unauthorised occupation cannot give raise to a claim for the petitioners to request process of rehabilitation and resettlement under Act 30 of 2013. It is not a case of acquisition of land from any land owner. It is a case where the respondents are intending to use their land for the benefit of everyone. Therefore, requiring the petitioners to vacate this site which is stated to cover about Ac.1-70 cents in S.No.1473, bit-2 of Nellore as stated in para-5 of the counter-affidavit by the respondents, is completely justified. The petitioners are bound to vacate this place. They cannot squat on this property on untenable grounds as are raised in this writ petition. Thus, this point is answered. POINT No.2: 25. Rehabilitation and Resettlement of the petitioners for the reasons stated in point No.1, are not requirements in terms of Act 30 of 2013. However, the respondents themselves stated in the counter affidavit that house sites would be provided to the petitioners and till they get the houses constructed under the relevant Government schemes, there is a proposal to give away Rs.3,000/- per month towards rental expenses, to get required accommodation by the petitioners. Even though the petitioners are not entitled to in law, the respondent authorities have floated this measure. The Government is intending to pay this amount to the petitioners though they did not have any right. It appears being the premium paid for the follies of the civic authorities and the authorities concerned to Irrigation department, who have a role to supervise and protect this canal bund. 26. This measure is suggested, which the petitioners as well can accept giving way for development activity of constructing retaining walls all along Sarvepalli canal running through Nellore municipal corporation area. At the same time, insistence of the petitioners to make such provisions before requiring them to vacate this site, is not proper. They do not have right to do so including in terms of Act 30 of 2013. Thus, this point is answered. POINT No.3: 27. In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, this writ petition should necessarily fail. They do not have right to do so including in terms of Act 30 of 2013. Thus, this point is answered. POINT No.3: 27. In view of the findings on points 1 and 2, this writ petition should necessarily fail. In the circumstances, the parties should bear their own costs. 28. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 29. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated.