JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri G. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Sri T. Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. for the respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioners 16 in number, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus in not regularizing or assigned pattas and threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their respective occupations/sheds which are erected for doing business in the eastern side road margin of Pudimakada road in Anakapalli District.

3. The prayer is reproduced as under:

“That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or orders specially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not regularizing or assigned pattas and threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their respective occupations/sheds which are erected for doing petty business such as cobbling and fruit selling etc in the eastern side road margin of Pudimakada road in Anakapalli town Anakapalli District without following due process of law pending consideration of application for regularization of their occupations or providing alternative sites for conducting business as per the orders of this Honble Court in W.P. No. 18353 of 2010 dated 28.07.2010 as illegal irregular arbitrary and violative of the settled principles of law violative of the provisions of Board Revenue Standing Orders Land Encroachment Act 1905 and also offends under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violation of the orders of this Honble Court in W.P. No. 18353 of 2010 dated 28-07-2010 and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioners and pass appropriate orders.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 earlier filed W.P. No. 18353 of 2010, which was disposed of on 28.07.2010, with a direction to the petitioners therein to make a proper representation to the respondent No. 1 therein, which respondent was also directed that in case such a representation was made, to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and till such time, those petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises.

5. The petitioners 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are said to have filed the representation dated 07.08.2010, which according to the submission has not been disposed of and recently in the month of October, 2022 the respondents are taking action to dispossess those petitioners, along with rest of the petitioners at S. No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 12 to 16 of this petition, in violation of the order dated 28.07.2010, passed in W.P. No. 18353 of 2010, pending consideration of their application for regularization and providing alternative sites.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are doing business on the road margin who seek direction to regularize their occupation by issuing directions to the respondent authorities.

7. Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners have encroached upon the road margin which is left for the public purposes. The petitioners have no right neither to carry on the business on the road margin nor for regularization of their possession under law. They also have no legal right for providing alternative sites. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of Sodan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee and Another, AIR 1989 SC 1988 as also in the case of Jubliee Hills Labour Welfare Association and Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner and Others, 2004 (1) ALT 321 (S.B.) to contend that those persons are also not entitled for opportunity of hearing before removing the encroachment except the reasonable time to e