Court holds writ petitioners were encroachers on government land, not entitled to alternate sites; directs fresh consideration of claims
In a significant judgment dated October 10, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Alapati Giridhar) allowed the State of Andhra Pradesh's writ appeals challenging a Single Judge's order which had set aside the District Collector's rejection of alternate accommodation claims by petitioners affected by the widening of a road in Tirupati.
The case arose from a long-standing public interest litigation concerning the widening of the Bhagavan Mahaveer Road near Alipiri, Tirupati. Petitioners T. Vaijayanthimala and others contended that they were entitled to alternate sites or accommodation for their structures demolished during the widening project. They claimed ownership rights based on registered sale deeds and sought parity with other displaced below-poverty-line (BPL) petitioners who had received alternate land allocations.
Earlier, the District Collector, Chittoor, had rejected the petitioners' claim for alternate accommodation on the ground that the land in question (Survey No. 949) was government land classified as "Gayalu Poramboke" (unassessed waste), which the petitioners had encroached upon by constructing unauthorized RCC buildings. Compensation was paid only for the demolished structures, not for the land. The petitioners were categorized as above poverty line (APL) and thus not eligible for free alternate house sites as per government rules. Further, the District Collector found the petitioners' claimed sale deeds and house site pattas to be fabricated and non-existent, rendering their ownership claims invalid.
Despite these findings, a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2022 set aside the District Collector's order and directed reconsideration, relying on the petitioners' claim of absolute ownership and entitlement similar to the BPL petitioners who had been allotted sites following a 2001 order. The State challenged this order and the subsequent dismissal of its review petition before the Division Bench.
The Division Bench's judgment reversed the Single Judge's order, holding that:
- - The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners in 1994 was withdrawn without liberty to file afresh, thereby barring subsequent writ petitions on the same cause under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- - The petitioners were not entitled to claim parity with the seven other displaced BPL petitioners who had formal proceedings in their favor from the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 19.10.1995.
- - The petitioners were encroachers on government land and had only a right to compensation for their demolished structures, which was already paid.
- - The alleged sale deeds and house site pattas produced were fabricated, and hence no ownership rights arose from them.
- - Government land can be resumed for public purpose without obligation to provide alternate accommodation to encroachers.
- - Delay in filing the State's writ appeal was condoned in the larger public interest, given the dispute concerned government land.
- - The State was entitled to challenge the rejection of its review petition by way of writ appeal.
Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the State's writ appeals, set aside the Single Judge's order, and restored the writ petition to its original number for fresh consideration, directing the State authorities to file counter-affidavits and the petitioners to challenge the District Collector's order of 28.11.2023 through appropriate proceedings if so advised.
This ruling clarifies that encroachers on government land who have been compensated for demolished structures during public works like road widening do not have a statutory right to alternate accommodation or sites, especially if they belong to the above poverty line category. It also underscores the principle that withdrawal of writ petitions without liberty bars fresh petitions on the same cause and that government delays in litigation may be condoned in the public interest.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition withdrawn without liberty bars fresh writ on same cause under Article 226 - Claim for alternate site after road widening could not be equated with claims of other displaced BPL persons when petitioners were found to be encroachers on Government land and had already received compensation for structures - Delay in filing State appeal condoned in larger public interest where dispute concerned Government land.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India Article 226, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905
State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Vaijayanthimala, (Andhra Pradesh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996225
