HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Appeal No.2386 of 2005 Between: Government Degree College Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Karimnagar, represented by its President. …Appellant And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. …Respondents. :: J U D G M E N T :: Counsel for the appellant : Sri K. Venumadhav Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) 29th March, 2007 Per G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. Having failed to persuade the learned Single Judge to direct the respondents to hand over possession of two parcels of land measuring Ac.8.35 guntas and Ac.2.18 guntas comprised in Survey No.120 of Arepalli (Theegalaguttapalli) Village of Karimnagar Mandal, appellant – Government Degree College Employees Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Karimnagar has filed this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appellant claims to have purchased the following parcels of land in Survey No.120 of Arepalli (Thegalaguttapalli) Village of Karimnagar Mandal: 1) Ac.5.00 purchased under registered sale deed bearing document No.1068/1982; 2) Ac.4.39 guntas purchased under registered sale deed bearing document No.645/1982, and 3) Ac.8.34 guntas purchased under registered sale deed bearing document No.2381/1982. After 14 years of the purchase, Mandal Revenue Officer, Karimnagar (respondent No.5) vide his order dated 30-9-1996 resumed the land to the government. The appeal preferred against that order was allowed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar (respondent No.4), and respondent No.5 was directed to restore the land to the appellant. He then passed order dated 28-12-2002 for restoration of land measuring Ac.8.00 to the appellant. However, the needful could not be done because in the meanwhile, the land was allotted to landless poor, who took possession and constructed residential houses. It is borne out from the record that for the purpose of implementing the order passed by respondent No.4 for restoration of land to the appellant and consequential proceedings issued by respondent No.5 on 28-12-2002, patta certificates of the landless poor were cancelled vide order dated 1-2-2003. Bandela Sudhakar and 108 others challenged the same in Writ Petition No.4155 of 2003. They also filed WPMP.No.5454 of 2003 for restraining the respondents from demolishing their houses and dispossessing them. By an order dated 10-3-2003, the learned Single Judge granted stay in terms of the prayer made in the miscellaneous petition. Therefore, possession of Ac.8.00 land could not be restored to the appellant. After about one year of the issue of proceedings dated 28-12- 2002 issued by respondent No.5, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.14459 of 2003 for directing the respondents to restore possession of two parcels of land described hereinabove. The same was disposed of by the learned Single Judge in the following terms: “In view of the pendency of the writ petition filed by third parties, no further direction can be given in this writ petition with regard to the implementation of the orders on which the petitioner society is relying on. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the revenue authorities, as soon as the interim stay granted in WPMP.No.5454 of 2003 in W.P.No.4155/2003 is vacated, seeking for restoration and thereupon, the respondents have to give effect to the proceedings already issued as expeditiously as possible.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that after resumption of the land purchased by the appellant, the same was divided into small parcels and allotted to landless poor persons, who took possession and constructed residential houses. It is also not in dispute that the attempt made by the respondents to secure possession of the land by cancelling patta certificates of the landless poor was frustrated by virtue of interim order dated 10-3-2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP.No.5454 of 2003 in Writ Petition No.4155 of 2003 – Bandela Sudhakar and 108 others. It is neither the pleaded case of the appellant nor the learned counsel appearing on its behalf could show that the interim order passed in the writ petition filed by landless poor persons has been vacated or the main petition has been dismissed. Therefore, it is not possible to entertain the appellant’s prayer for restoration of the land ignoring the fact that the same is in possession of large number of landless poor, none of whom has been impleaded as a party to these proceedings. That apart, we do not consider it appropriate to pass an order, which may lead to demolition of the houses constructed by unknown number of persons. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that if possession of the land purchased by it cannot be restored, then the respondents should be directed to allot alternative land to the appellant or pay the market value of the land. In our opinion, the alternative prayer made on behalf of the appellant appears reasonable and merits acceptance. The appellant cannot be deprived of its right to property without the sanction of law. The situation in which the appellant finds itself is the creation of the respondents. Therefore, they are bound to remedy the situation by allotting alternative land to the appellant or by paying the market value of the land. Hence, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms: i) The appellant’s prayer for restoration of possession of land comprised in Survey No.120 of Arepalli (Thegallaguttapalli) Village, Karimnagar Mandal is rejected. ii) Within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the State Government shall take appropriate decision in the matter of allotment of alternative land to the appellant or pay the market value of its land. iii) If the Government decides to allot alternative land to the appellant, then the needful be done within next one month. iv) If the Government decides to acquire land for allotment to the appellant, then the acquisition proceedings shall be initiated and finalised, as far as possible, within six months and possession of the acquired land be handed over to the appellant. v) If the Government decides against allotment of alternative land to the appellant, then compensation be paid to it at the market rate prevailing on the date of dispossession. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal in the manner indicated above, all the pending miscellaneous petitions are disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. 29th March, 2007 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. ARS