IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY TWENTYFIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 9 2 3 OF 2009. Between: Mohd. Ghouse Khan …. Appellant V/s. The Secretary of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Ors. …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed Counsel for the Respondent: Govt. Pleader for Revenue Telangana Area THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 9 2 3 OF 2009. J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 19- 2-2009 passed in WP.No. 3658 of 2008 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the appellant-petitioner was aware about the nature and extent of land, when it was allotted to him, he accepted the same and did not raise any objection after the transaction. 2. The main writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not allotting the alternative land to the petitioner in survey No. 705 of Achanpalli village, Bhodan Mandal, Nizamabad district not only amounts to dereliction of duty but also amounts to playing fraud on this Hon’ble court by filing counter by the District Revenue Officer, Mahboobnagar in contempt case No. 379 of 1992 wherein it was categorically admitted about the allotment of alternative land to avoid contempt proceedings . 3. Facts in brief are that the appellant-petitioner’s grand mother, father and uncles earlier filed WP.No. 3467 of 1988 seeking mandamus to issue pattas in pursuance of the orders passed in WP.No. 4950 of 1978 in respect of the lands submerged during the construction of Koyal Sagar Project on the basis of allotment of alternative land as contemplated under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act. By an order dated 13-9-1991 this court disposed off WP.No. 3467 of 1988. In pursuance of the order dated 13-9-1991 passed in WP.No. 3467 of 1988 a representation was made for allotment of alternative land and the same was not complied with. Thereafter, C.C.No.397 of 1992 was filed, in which the-then District Revenue Officer, Mahboobnagar filed counter contending that a requisition was made to the Collector, Nizamabad district for allotment of alternative land in the Nizam Sagar Mandal and on receipt of the information it was stated that an extent of Ac:29-26 guntas in survey No.599 of an extent of Acs:9-30 guntas, Survey No.600 of an extent of Ac:10- 28 guntas and Survey No. 74 of an extent of Ac:9-18 guntas situated at Achampet village, Nizam Sagar Mandal, Nizamabad district has been allotted by the Nizamabad Collector by order dated 21-9-1992 and therefore, there is no disobedience. In view of the allotment CC.No.397 of 1992 was closed. 4. It is stated that on verification of the land it is noticed that Survey No.74 of Achampet village, which is of an extent of Ac:10-30 guntas is not cultivable land as per the memo issued by the Assistant Director, Survey Settlement Land Record, Nizamabad bearing No.B/707/94, dated 18-7-1996 and that an extent of Ac:0-25 guntas were already allotted to other persons, Ac:L0-14 guntas was encroached by the pattedar in Survey No. 78 and the balance of land is covered by hillocks, which is unfit for cultivation and hence he could conduct phodi. It is further stated that on receipt of the said letter, he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizam Sagar along with the letter of Assistant Director, Survey Land Record, Nizamabad on 02-6-1999 and on his application, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a certificate on 21-6-1999 stating that the land in Survey No.74 of Achampet village is covered by hillocks and it is unfit for cultivation and the certificate was issued to approach the authorities for allotment of alternative land. 5. It is further stated that a representation was made to the third respondent duly enclosing the certificate and requested for allotment of alternative land and also pointed out that the land at Achampet village, Bhodhan Mandal, in survey No.702 and 705. But the third respondent issued a memo stating that the land in Survey Nos. 702 and 705 is a subject matter of WP.No. 8059 of 2001 and the same is under dispute and it cannot be proposed for any agency. Thereafter, he filed WPMP.No. 7323 of 2005 in WP.No.8059 of 2001 and this court ordered the said WPMP by order dated 05-4-2005. 6. It is also stated that WP.No. 8059 of 2001 came up for hearing before this Court and this court after hearing the matter dismissed WP.No. 8059 of 2001 by an order dated 03-12-2007. After obtaining certified copy of the order, he approached the third respondent through a representation dated 21-01-2008 seeking for allotment of the land in survey No.705 of Achanpalli village, Bhodan Mandal, Nizamabad District. It is stated that in similar set of circumstances, this court by order dated 01-12- 2005 passed in WP.No.19693 of 2005 directed the respondent to take necessary steps in accordance with law for allotment of land. It is stated that as the land of the appellant-petitioner was submerged in Koyal Sagar Project, Mahbooibnagar district and the land was acquired under the Hyderabad Land Acquisition Act in which provision is made for allotment of alternative land in lieu of the land acquired. Consequently, this court on earlier occasion directed to allot the land but while allotting the authorities misled and allotted hillock to avoid contempt proceedings, therefore, basing on the certificates issued fresh representation was made to allot the land, which is fit for cultivation. 7. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit the respondents denied the allegations made by the appellant- petitioner. It is averred that the lands in survey Nos. 702 and 705 are not available for assignment and that they belong to Nizam Sugars Limited. 8. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the rival contentions raised by the parties, the learned single Judge by an order dated 19-2-2009 dismissed WP.No. 3658 of 2008 observing that in the counter-affidavit filed in CC.No. 397 of 1992, the description and extent of land were clearly mentioned but the appellant-petitioner did not raise any objection at that time and he accepted the same and more so it is not as if the nature of the land has changed ever since it was allotted to him. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal is filed. 10. Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellant firstly contended that the allotment order was made on 21-9-1992 and directed the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer to hand over physical possession of the land allotted and it was noticed that the total extent of land in survey No.74 in an extent of Ac:10-30 guntas, out of which an extent of Ac:0-25 guntas was already assigned, Ac:0-14 guntas were encroached by pattedars in survey No.78 and the remaining land is covered by hillock and unfit for cultivation, consequently the possession could not be delivered. Secondly, it is contended that on representation, the Assistant Director, Survey Settlement and Land Record as well as the Mandal Revenue Officer gave certificates on 18-7-1996 and 21-6-1999 directing the petitioner to approach for allotment of alternative land. Thirdly, it is contended that in view of the certificates issued by the revenue authorities, the appellant identified survey Nos. 702 and 705 belonging to Nizam Sugar Limited and requested to allot the same but the appellant was informed that WP.No.8059 of 2001 pending consideration with regard to the said land, therefore, the appellant got impleaded and finally WP.No. 8059 of 2001 was dismissed on 03-12-2007. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge that the land cannot be allotted at this length of time cannot be sustained. The learned counsel further contended that the learned single Judge should have seen that to purge the contempt proceedings in CC.No.397 of 1992 the authorities stated that the land has been allotted but in fact possession could not be delivered, which is evident from the reports of the Assistant Director as well as the Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, the contention that the land cannot stand to legal scrutiny. There are no laches on the part of the appellant and on the other hand, the appellant approached the authorities repeatedly, obtained certificates, identified the land and this court directed in a similar set of circumstances to allot the land of Nizam Sugar Limited in WP.No.19693 of 2005. Now that the authorities cannot take “U” turn to defeat the genuine claim. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the records. 12. It is stated that the appellant was allotted an extent of Acs:29-26 guntas of land in various survey numbers of Achanpalli village of Bodhan Mandal in Nizamabad district including the land in survey No.74 and on verification it is found that it is full of hillocks and not fit for cultivation. It is also stated that a representation was made for allotment of alternative lands in survey Nos. 702 and 705 but the authorities have not take any action. It is stated that the land of the appellant was submerged more than half a century ago and the respondents have recognized the right of the appellant and allotted the lands in Nizamabad. The direction issued in WP.No.3467 of 1988 was implemented, when CC.No.397 of 1992 was filed. The learned single Judge has held that the appellant is aware of the nature of the land and he never objected for the said allotment. Under the above circumstances, the learned single Judge having found no basis had dismissed the main writ petition. Now the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the land allotted to the appellant is not suitable and further contends that in similar set of circumstances this court directed to allot the land of Nizam Sugar Limited in WP.No.19693 of 2005 and hence alternative land shall be allotted to the appellant. But however, we are of the opinion that when the respondents having allotted the land in an extent of Acs:29-26 guntas in various survey numbers of Achanpalli village of Bodhan Revenue Mandal in Nizamabad district in survey No.74, the appellant did not raise any objection and now the appellant has no legal right whatsoever to claim alternative land on the ground that the land is not fit for cultivation. 13. Under the above circumstances, the learned Single Judge has carefully examined the entire record and while exercising the jurisdiction, it is not necessary for us to re-appreciate the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, as the appellant failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record to disturb the findings of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings arrived by the learned single Judge. We are the of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI _______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 21-10-2009. I s L