THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.3055 of 2011 Dated 22nd December, 2011 Between: Vankayala Nageswara Rao and others …Petitioners And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary to Revenue, (Land Acquisition) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Sita Ram Chaparla Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in insisting on the petitioners to vacate the property admeasuring Acs.3.74 cents in Survey No.1196/1 of South Addanki Revenue Village without acquiring and paying compensation for the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioners averred that the land admeasuring Acs.5.05 cents originally belonged to the ancestors of one Abdul Khadar Saheb, resident of South Addanki Village, that after his demise, his legal heirs Abdul Vahab, Abdul Nabi Saheb and Abdul Jabbar Saheb sold Acs.4.00 in favour of Zaheerabee, W/o Mohammad Suleman Saheb under registered sale deed, dated 04.09.1941, and that thereafter, the said property was alienated under 15 registered sale transactions, the latest being in favour of the petitioners under registered sale deed, dated 20.12.2004, by Rayani Ramanjaneyulu. The petitioners also averred that their names were mutated in the revenue records maintained by respondent No.3 and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued to them under the provisions of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The petitioners alleged that on 24.01.2011, respondent Nos.2 to 4 along with the survey staff visited their land and orally informed them that a portion of the said land is required for construction of an electrical sub-station undertaken by respondent No.4 and insisted on them to give away about Ac.0.50 cents of land at market value. That respondent No.2 invited the petitioners for negotiations on settling market value and that as no consensus could be reached in the negotiations, the respondents started demanding the petitioners to vacate the land. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that an extent of Acs.5.05 cents in Survey No.1196 was classified as kunta poramboke as per the RSR of the Village and that the same is subsequently converted into assessed waste land as per the proceedings, dated 10.07.1929, of the then Collector, Guntur and dated 20.07.1929 of the Tahsildar. That the changes were incorporated in the village accounts, that out of the total extent of Acs.5.05 cents, an extent of Ac.0.06 cents was covered by NSP canal and out of the balance extent of Acs.4.99 cents, an extent of Acs.1.25 cents was registered in favour of Sri Samatha Seva Sangham vide document No.434/96, dated 14.02.1996, and that as per the status on ground the Seva Sangam has leased the land to a private individual for running granite polishing unit. The counter affidavit further averred that the petitioners, who are residents of Muppavaram Village, J.Panguluru Mandal have jointly purchased Acs.3.74 cents in Survey No.1196/1 under registered sale deed No.2279/04 and that during verification of Government lands abutting to Addanki to Narketpalli State Highway, the land referred to above was identified for allotment of Government institutions, such as, hostels, 133/11 kv substations and for other public purposes and that as the land belongs to the Government and is occupied by the petitioners at the rate of Ac.0.93¼ cents each, the petitioners filed the present writ petition on apprehension that they may be evicted. On these averments, it is pleaded that the petitioners have no right over the land as the title is vested in the Government. The petitioners filed copies of registered sale deeds and pattadar pass books and title deeds issued in their favour. In their turn, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a copy of the RSR describing the land as ‘G’. The respondents have not disputed the plea of the petitioners that as many as 16 registered sale transactions have taken place in respect of the land in question. They have admitted that the petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deed. They have also not controverted the claim of the petitioners that they were issued pattadar pass books and title deeds. In my opinion, in the face of this overwhelming documentary evidence, the respondents cannot term the petitioners as encroachers, unless a proper enquiry is held after notice to the petitioners. The law is well settled mere entry in RSR does not determine the nature of the title (see District Collector v. N.Krishna Mohan[1] and Hyderabad Potteries Private Limited v. District Collector, Hyderabad[2]). Unless the relevant revenue record pertaining to title of the land is considered vis-à-vis the documents on which the petitioners are claiming their title, the respondents cannot treat them as encroachers. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to issue notices to the petitioners, wherein he shall state the material on the basis of which he has termed the land as belonging to the Government. On receipt of such notices, the petitioners are entitled to file their objections along with documentary proof of their title. Respondent No.2 shall hold enquiry into the claim of title by the petitioners after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to them. Until a conclusion is reached by respondent No.2 on the respective claims of the parties over title, the possession of the petitioners shall not be interfered with. It is made clear that the scope of enquiry by respondent No.2 shall relate to the prima facie nature of the title, as eventually it is the Court of competent civil jurisdiction which has to adjudicate upon the title of the parties. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the conclusion that may be arrived at by respondent No.2, they shall be free to approach the competent civil Court for declaration of their title and for other reliefs. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.3792 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.4010 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd December, 2011 VGB [1] 2000 (4) ALD 126 [2] 2001 (3) ALD 600