Point of law : water bodies cannot be alienated even if they are dry and cultivation carried on dried bed of water bodies does not denude land of its character as water bodies.

ORDER :

1. All these petitions are filed claiming same relief by different petitioners having land in different survey numbers, but the issue involved in these petitions is one and the same. Therefore, I find that it is expedient to decide all the petitions by common order treating Writ Petition No. 5464 of 2019 as leading petition.

2. Writ Petition No. 5464 of 2019 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents particularly respondent No 4 in not issuing prior notice of demolition and threatening the petitioner to demolish his dwelling house again constructed in Plot No. 28 situated in Sy. No. 173/3 to an extent of 0-04 cents in Konka Chennaiah Gunta, Puthur Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District is illegal highhanded, in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides being opposed to the principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct respondent No. 4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the of the petitioner in her dwelling house constructed in Plot No. 28 situated in Sy. No. 173/3 to an extent of Ac. 0.04 cents in Konka Chennaiah Gunta, Puthur Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that one A. Subba Ramaiah S/o Jaya Ramaiah, was a freedom fighter. On 10.04.1992 P. Venu Gopal, Secretary, Chittoor District Freedom Fighters Association, made an application to the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Revenue Mandal (Urban), Tirupathi, with a request to allot house sites to all Freedom Fighters numbering 32 persons including the vendor of the petitioner A. Subba Ramaiah. All 32 Freedom Fighters were given plots at Konka Chennaiah Gunta, Puthur Village and the vendor of the petitioner Sri. A. Subba Ramaiah was allotted Plot No. 28 in Sy. No. 173/3 to an extent of Ac. 0-04 cents (25 x 80) vide patta bearing THS No. 595/1992 dated 25.05.1992. The petitioner purchased the above said land from his vendor Sri. A. Subba Ramaiah on 29.01.2004, he sold the said land to the petitioner because of his old age ailments and for his livelihood. From the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He constructed pucca house by obtaining “No Objection Certificate” from the then Mandal Revenue Officer in Plot No. 28 in Sy. No. 173/3 in Konka Chennaiah Gunta, Puthur Village, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner is paying electricity bills regularly. While so, the Village Revenue Officer on the instructions of respondent No. 4 highhandedly demolished the house of the petitioner with JCB on 29.03.2019 without issuing any prior notice of demolition and thrown him on the street with his family, again he constructed a house for dwelling purpose and living therein. But, the Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer) is threatening the petitioner to demolish his house without any reason and without issuing any prior notice. The petitioner questioned the Village Revenue Officer when he was demolishing his house, he simply replied that he was directed by the Mandal Revenue Officer to demolish the same, but he did not show any demolition order. The petitioner constructed the house with his hard earned money. In the event of demolition of house, the petitioner will be put to serious loss. However, when the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, respondent No. 4 or his subordinates are not entitled to demolish the house without any notice and without following due process of law.

4. The petitioner specifically raised the following grounds in the writ petition:

(a) The highhanded action of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice, since no prior opportunity was given to the petitioner before proposed demolition of the house.

(b) The act of the respondents in threatening to demolish the house of the petitioner on any day without following the procedure is violative of Article 14,