The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood and the right to residence and settlement under Article 19 (1) (e). The assignment of Government land to the petitioners is a means to effectuate the object of right to livelihood. The action of the respondents in trying to demolish the petitioners' huts and eject them is unconstitutional, unjust, unfair, and illegal.

( 1 ) THREE hundred hut-dwellers-petitioners have occupied Ac. 10-22 guntasof Government land in S No. 424 by name "thummala Kunta" and Ac 4-00 adjacent land in S. No. 35 by name "alugu" in Mathwada village which is now an integral part of Warangal Municipality. All of them are migrants from suburban villages to eke out their livelihood and they are poor belonging to different communities. It is their case that they have constructed huts and have been living therein for over fifteen years. They made applications to assign them on patta the respective sites. Without considering their applications, the respondents are trying to demolish their huts. Therefore they sought Mandamus for assignment of the land and restraining the respondents from ejecting them.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 and 6 filed a joint counter stating that noticeunder Sec. 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act 3 of 1905), for short, "the Act" were served on the petitioners; the Tahsildar was empowered to have the petitioners ejected and the procedure to lawfully have them ejected has been adhered to. They did not deny the petitioners making applications for assignment and their pendency. The 5th respondent-Andhra balika (Girls) Arts and Commerce College, Warangal through its Secretary, sri Madhava Rao filed a separate counter contending that the Government allotted Ac. 4-00 in S. No. 424 for construction of a building to the College; possession of the land was delivered by it on April 4, 1982; some hut-dwellers filed O. S. No. 235/80 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Warangal; the injunction was ultimately vacated; the Tahsildar ejected 21 hut-dwellers and delivered possession of the land to the College on April 5, 1984 and the college is in possession and enjoyment. The petitioners after obtaining orders of stay from this Court have removed their name-board and trespassed into the land. The 7tb respondent-Municipality passed an unanimous resolution that the petitioners have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the land by constructing buts and therefore recommended for their continuation. On consideration of the entire evidence placed before this Court, this Court in WVMP No. 8857 and WPMP No. 660/84 by order dated June 15, 1984 held thus :"i have before me the undisputed and unimpeachable unanimous resolution passed by the elected representatives of the Warangal municipality wherein they have stated in unambiguous terms that the huts are in existence and that they shall not be dispossessed since there is no alternative site available in the town. Regarding the report of the Tahsildar of the alleged delivery of possession it was held that it is obvious y a paper delivery and the Tahsildar has fabricated the documents to buttress the claim of the College. Accordingly the interim injunction was made absolute. This was confirmed in the writ appeal filed by the 5th respondent. The petitioners are continuing in possession of the respective hutments.

( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners being poorand indigent, have no financial capacity to purchase any site within the Munci paltty or its periphery to have huts for their living; right to life includes right to such adventitious aids which would subserve the petitioners right to construct houses to have their fundamental right to residence and settle down at Warangal assured under Article 19 (1) (e) to become a reality; the land being Government land and lying vacant it was occupied by the petitioners; under the policy of the Government, landless poor are entitled to assignment oi Government land free of cost; petitioners made applications to the first respondent to grant pattas; it is the duty of (he respondent to grant pattas and assign lands for the continued existence of the huts constructed by the petitioners. Instead of taking such action the respondents are concocting records to have the petitioners ejected to deprive their r