- (1.)There are 192 petitioners in this writ petition. They filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada (first respondent), Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Vijayawada (second respondent) and Village Administrative Officer, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, in seeking to dispossess them from their lands admeasuring Acs.8.92 cents in R.S.No.17/5, 24/5, 26/2, 34/1, 35/1, 36/1, 37/1 and 39/1 of Bhavanipuram village, Vijayawada, hereafter called the petition schedule land, contrary to the observations made by this Court that the petitioners are not bound by the judgment in L.G.O.P.No.335 of 1983 as illegal and contrary to law. They also seek further orders as the Court deems fit.
(2.)The case of the petitioners is very short. In the affidavit filed by the first petitioner on behalf of other petitioners, they stated as follows. Respondents 4 to 11 herein filed L.G.O.P.No.335 of 1983 against third parties praying the Special Tribunal constituted under A.P. Land Grabbing (Protection) Act, 1982 seeking eviction of those persons from the petition land on the ground that they are land grabbers. The Special Tribunal passed an order in favour of respondents 4 to 11. The same was sought to be executed by evicting the petitioners. They approached this Court by filing W.P.No.3486 of 2000 questioning the judgment and decree in L.G.O.P.No.335 of 1983. The writ petition was not accepted. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court observed that the judgment in LGOP will not bind the petitioners and they were given liberty to approach the civil Court. The petitioners filed a civil suit as informa pauperis. They allege that the suit is pending registration before the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. On 22-1-2003, it is alleged, respondents 1 to 3 came to the site along with ....so as to forcibly dispossess the petitioners in execution of the decree passed by the learned Tribunal in the LGOP. The petitioners contend that the action of respondents 1 to 3 in evicting them pursuant to such decree is illegal and contrary to the observations made by this Court and that it violates fundamental right of the petitioners to live in a dignified guaranteed under the Constitution of India besides violating Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, they filed the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 as well as respondents 4 and 8 to 11 have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the MRO on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that Haji Abdul Mahmood Saheb and eight others filed LGOP No.335 of 1983 against New Joji labour society, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, represented by its President. The said society and its members, it is alleged in the said O.P., grabbed land in Sy.Nos.17/5. 24/4, 26/2, 24/1, 25/1, 36/1, 37/1, 38/1 and 39/1 admeasuring Acs.8...situated at Bhavanipuram village. The Court of the I Additional Distirct Judge, Vijayawada passed a decree on 23-8-1983 declaring that the petitioners in the LGOP are the owners of petition schedule lands and that New Joji Labour Society and its members are land grabbers. The said Tribunal also ordered eviction of the members of the petitioner society immediately and directed to restore petition schedule lands to the claimants in the LGOP. The society filed appeal against the judgment and decree in L.G.O.P.No.335 of 1983 with a petition to condone delay on the file of the Special Tribunal. The condone delay petition was dismissed on 28-1-1994 and one Chaitanya .N.V.Reddy and others filed a writ petition being W.P.No.1685 of 1985 seeking a direction to the officials to deliver possession of the land. This Court dismissed the writ petition directing the petitioners to approach appropriate forum. In the meanwhile, Haji Mas..filed W.P.No.25614 of ..seeking a direction to the Revenue officials to implement the judgment and decree in L.G.O.P.No.335 of 1983. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition on 18-7-2000 directing the Revenue officials to deliver actual, physical and vacant possession of the petition schedule property in the LGOP subject to the claimants providing necessary paraphernalia and also depositing an amount of Rs.25,000/- with the Revenue officials. The petitioners herein (192 persons) filed W.P.No.3486 of 2000 questioning the judgment and decree in LGOP No.335 of 1983. By an order dated 16-10-2000, this Court dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies in a civil Court. This Court also observed that the judgment in LGOP will not bind the petitioners. The petitioners filed O.S.No.15 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for perpetual injunction. The said Court granted interim order in the suit. One Chaitanya Samkshema Sangham filed a writ petition being W.P.No.8724 of 2001 seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 9-3-2001 issued in From No.5 by the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada and also second respondent to take possession of the land and deliver the same to the claimants in LGOP. The writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage on 27-1-2001 and the members of the petitioner Sangham did not press the writ petition and the same was dismissed as withdrawn at the admission stage. However, the said Sangham again filed W.P.No.106 ....of 2001 seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Act are void and illegal and a further direction that the proceedings dated 19-1-2000 in Form No.5 are illegal. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 7-10-2000.
(3.)In the counter affidavit of respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that one ..and...filed W.P.No.14....seeking a declaration that the action of the Revenue officials in dispossessing them from the houses in their occupation is illegal. The writ petition was also dismissed on 18....In view of these proceedings, the writ petition is not maintainable. Respondents are taking steps for evicting the petitioners from the petition schedule land as per law and, therefore, the writ petition does not need any consideration. Respondents 4 and 8 to 11 also filed a lengthy counter affidavit narrating the history of the litigation. A brief reference is only necessary to the same. It is their case that one Mahboob Ali ..Saheb of Vijayawada is the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.8.92 cents in D.Nos.35/1, 36/1 etc. situated at Bhavanipuram, He had purchased the land from Sidda ....under a registered sale deed dated 17-11-...Mahboob Ali Baig Saheb sold property to the grand father of the fourth respondent under a registered sale deed dated 11-1-1943 and since then till his death in 1962, Abdul Kareem (grand father of fourth respondent) was in possession. The family partition took place on 21-9-1968. An extent of Acs.2.60 cents was allotted to Vazir Abdul Raheem saheb. He also obtained a Ryotwari passbook from the Revenue Department. Under a gift deed, Haji Abdul ...gave the property to respondents 8 to 11 and they were in possession of the property. The members of New Joji Labour Society, New Joji Nagar trespassed into the lands and put up huts. Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were initiated in M.C.No...by the Taluk Magistrate, Vijayawada. As per the orders of the said Magistrate, dated 26=5-6-1991, the huts put up by the members of the society were removed on 6-8-2000. In spite of the same on 15-8-1991, M.....calling themselves as President and Secretary of the society respectively along with other members of the society trespassed into the remaining land and erected huts thereon. Again, a criminal case being C.C.No.386 of 1981 was filed before the Court of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada which ended in acquittal. Again, ......and....trespassed on to the land on 4-2-1983. The respondents, therefore, filed a case being C.C.No.60 of 1983 before the learned Magistrate. The respondents after coming to know that no purpose would be served by evicting the hut dwellers along with their father filed L.G.O.P.No.335 of 1983 before the Special Tribunal which passed a judgment on 27-10-1983 in favour of the respondents. When the LGOP was initially filed before the I Additional District Judge and was subsequently transferred to the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, the society represented by its President Sri C.Hariprasad and Scretary....filed a revision petition being C.R.P.No.115 of 1981 under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contending that the District Judge is designated as Special Tribunal as persona designata and, therefore, the Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to dispose of the LGOP. The contention was rejected and CRP was dismissed on 17-12-1999. It was also observed that all the persons who were in occupation of a portion of the respondents' land are bound by the judgment and decree in LGOP though they are not parties to the same. After obtaining the judgment and decree before the Special Tribunal, the respondents moved the Revenue officials for delivering possession of the land by removing the first respondent. As no action was taken, the respondents filed W.P.No.25674 of 1999 seeking a direction to the Revenue officials to deliver possession of the land. The same was disposed of on ...giving appropriate directions. The respondents were directed to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- ..............and also provide necessary...The respondents complied with the directions issued by this Court.