( 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.

( 4 ) BY filing a counter, the official respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioner. Even the respondent No. 5, a private respondent, also denied the allegation made by the petitioner by filing a vacate petition/counter. The official respondents stated that the petitioner has filed this writ petition by misrepresenting the facts to this Court. They stated that on the basis of the proceedings No. 16417dated 11-9-1997, the petitioner has no authority to enter into the Government land, without executing a valid agreement in terms of these proceedings, in favour of the Government. Under condition No. 6 of the said proceedings, it is specifically provided that the petitioner should enter into an agreement in the proper form before entering into the land and such an agreement was not yet executed. But on the basis of the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has tried to encroach the private vacant lands adjacent to the present land and accordingly created law and order problem. The neighbouring inhabitants like Sri P. K. Doraswamy submitted a report to the authorities. In those circumstances, the lease order dated 11-9-1997 was cancelled, in order to avoid further complications in the matter. The said cancellation order was sent to the address furnished by the petitioner in his representation, but the same has been wantonly not taken by the petitioner. In the counter, the official respondents further denied that the petitioner has spent Rs. 1,00,000. 00 for starting a mechanic shop as alleged by him, by stating that for opening a mechanic shop, one requires the approval of various other authorities. It is only to gain sympathy of this Court, the petitioner has falsely stated that he spent Rs. 1,00,000. 00 for starting a