IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 29278 of 1997 Between: Pattan Saida Saheb, S/o. Madar Saheb R/o. Ramapuram Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh., Rep by its District Collector, Nalgonda. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer ( L. A. O ), Miryalguda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer (L.A.O), Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mellacheruvu, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5 M/s. Priya Darshini Cements Ltd, Ramapuram, Rep by its Managing Director, Regd. Office at H.No. 6-3-1092 & 1093, 1st Floor, Shanti Sikhara Complex, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad--482 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the acts of the respondents 1 to 4 delivering of possession of the land of the petitioner to the 5th respondent and not restoring possession of the land to the petitioner in spite of the fact ﬁnding enquiry by the respondents 1 to 4 that the land of the petitioner was not acquired and the act of the 5th respondent taking delivery of property of the petitioner without initiating acquisition proceedings as per Law are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and also aﬀecting the right to life of the petitioner; and consequentially direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the crops and mental agony to the petitioner and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to re-deliver possession of two acres of land in Sy.No.109/Ruu situated at Revoor Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District to the petitioner herein. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.29278 of 1997 ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in delivering possession of the land of the petitioner to the ﬁfth respondent, and not restoring possession of the petitioner inspite of a ﬁnding being recorded that the land belongs to the petitioner, as arbitrary. Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is also sought towards crop loss and mental agony caused to the petitioner. Further direction is sought for re-delivery of possession of land of an extent of Acs.2.00 in Survey No.109/Ruu situated at Revoor village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. The petitioner is the owner of land of an extent of Acs.2.00 situated in Survey No.109/Ruu of Revoor village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. It is his case that he was in possession of the said property till 1987-88, that the ﬁfth respondent forcibly occupied the entire extent of land and constructed quarters, that when he questioned the illegal act of the ﬁfth respondent, he was informed that it had taken possession of the property from respondents 1 to 4 and that the land had been acquired by respondents 1 to 4 at the instance of the ﬁfth respondent. The petitioner claims to have enquired and to have come to know that the ﬁrst respondent had acquired Acs.140.00 of land for industrial purpose and for construction of quarters, that the second respondent was appointed as Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and that the land was acquired for the beneﬁt of the ﬁfth respondent. It is also stated that in so far as the petitioner’s land is concerned, no such acquisition proceedings had been initiated. The petitioner would contend that neither was a notice served nor was he asked to deliver possession of the land, that later he came to know that the fourth respondent, colluding with the ﬁfth respondent, had recorded the name of the ﬁfth respondent for an extent of Acs.0.39 guntas of his land in the aforesaid survey number. The petitioner would further submit that the ﬁfth respondent had fenced and occupied Acs.2.00 of the petitioner’s land, that he complained to the ﬁrst respondent, who directed the second respondent to conduct an enquiry, that the second respondent held an enquiry after issuing notice to the ﬁfth respondent and had come to the conclusion that the petitioner’s land had been delivered to the ﬁfth respondent and that recording of their name in the revenue records had been done illegally. The fourth respondent was directed, vide proceedings dated 17.05.1993 issued under Section 166-B of the A.P., Land Revenue Act, to cancel the patta in the name of the ﬁfth respondent and restore the name of the petitioner as pattadar. The petitioner has also given details for his claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the third respondent, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer-cum-Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, Suryapet, states that the petitioner was the pattadar for an extent of Acs.2.00 of land situated in Survey No.109/R4 of Revoor village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District, that, on veriﬁcation of ward No.4425/85, dated 20.03.1986, he had come to know that out of the total extent of Acs.134.26 guntas of land acquired among other survey numbers, an extent of Acs.21.06 guntas was acquired in Survey No.109 in which the petitioner’s name seems to be not available among the other awardees. It is stated that the Land Acquisition Oﬃcer and the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer had not handed over possession of the petitioner’s land to the ﬁfth respondent, that the management of the ﬁfth respondent had constructed some structures and as such compensation had to be paid to the petitioner by the ﬁfth respondent since there was no notiﬁcation including his extent. While reiterating that the petitioner was the pattadar of Acs.2.00 of land in Survey No.109/Ruu of Revoor village, it is stated that in the Faisal patti 1987-88 of Revoor village, Kammi mutation was eﬀected in the name of Smt.Naraparaju Ranganayakamma for an extent of Ac.0.39 guntas in Survey No.109/R4, but land acquisition proceedings were not initiated in that survey number and Isafa was made in favour of the ﬁfth respondent, that later the wrong mutation made in favour of the ﬁfth respondent was reviewed under Section 166-B of Land Revenue Act, the wrong mutation was cancelled vide proceedings dated 17.05.1993 and pattadar passbook was also issued to the petitioner. It is stated that a letter dated 24.01.1998 had been sent to the ﬁfth respondent to submit the required particulars but the company had failed to furnish the required particulars. It is reiterated that the land under dispute is patta land, that the petitioner had a pattadar passbook over the land, that the ﬁfth respondent had illegally occupied the suit land and that it was a ﬁt case to direct the ﬁfth respondent to pay compensation or to direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 14.03.2007 the Tahsildar submitted a report through the learned Government Pleader. Mr.Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would admit that his clerk has taken away the report and had failed either to return it back to the learned Government Pleader or to make available a copy thereof either to her or to this court. Learned counsel would further submit that he had perused the report and that the report did not contain anything in addition to what was stated in the counter affidavit. Since the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer-cum-Land Acquisition Oﬃcer has denied having delivered possession of the petitioner’s land to the ﬁfth respondent, it is not possible for this Court to decide disputed questions of fact such as whether or not the oﬃcial respondents had delivered possession of the petitioner’s land, of an extent of Acs.2.00, to the ﬁfth respondent etc. It is evident from the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer that the ﬁfth respondent had illegally occupied the petitioner’s land. Despite service of notice, the ﬁfth respondent has not even entered appearance let alone ﬁle a counter detailing its case. While, ordinarily, the petitioner ought to have been relegated to the remedy of a civil suit, it is required to be noted that entire holding of the petitioner is only this extent of Acs.2.00 of land and consequently he has been deprived of his only source of livelihood. The writ petition has been pending on the ﬁle of this Court for the past 11 years. Relegating the petitioner to the remedy of a civil suit seeking re-delivery of the possession at this stage would only add to his misery and compound his agony. Ends of justice would be met if, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, a direction is issued to the ﬁfth respondent to re-deliver possession of the petitioner’s land of an extent of Acs.2.00 to him, since the said land has, evidently, been illegally occupied by the ﬁfth respondent though the said land has not been acquired. With regards the petitioner’s claim for damages for crop loss and mental agony, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude him from availing such other remedies as are available to him in law. The ﬁfth respondent shall re-deliver possession of this extent of Acs.2.00 to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _____________________ Ramesh Ranganathan, J Dt.06.11.2008 VGB