their respective house-sites granted by the revenue authorities under the assignment scheme. The orders impugned in the present writ petition are highly illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. It is further contended that the petitioners herein were issued pattas by the second respondent/Mandal Revenue Officer prior to 1992 i.e., prior to the gazette notification dated 04.07.1992 issued by the Union of India, declaring the protected area, and that the petitioners herein are not encroachers and on the other hand they are the holders of validly issued house-site pattas and since the pattas were granted and the constructions were made prior to the gazette notification dated 04.07.1992, the said notification cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect in respect of the constructions made by the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that the question of obtaining permission from the Union of India prior to the gazette notification for construction of houses by the petitioners herein would never arise and the houses of the petitioners herein are situated by the side of main road, leading from Panyam to Banaganapalle where as the temple and the monuments are existing behind the petitioners’ houses and far away from their houses and there would be no harm nor any damage because of the houses constructed by the petitioners herein. It is further contended by the learned counsel that if the land where the constructions have been made by the petitioners herein is required, it is incumbent on the part of the respondent authorities to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but they cannot issue the impugned proceedings for removal of the structures validly made by the petitioners herein. It is the further contention of the petitioners’ counsel that the impugned action which culminated in the order passed by the first respondent is a patent violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners herein under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
