IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11641 of 2004 Between: 1 Annabathula Venkata Ramana Murthy S/o. Venkateswara Rao, L.Gannavaram, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Gidugu Verra Raghavulu S/o. Venkataramayya L.Gannavaram, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Panthala Gangaraju S/o. Manikyam L.Gannavaram, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, E.G.District. Kakinada. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, E.G.Dist. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, P. Gannavaram, P. Gannavaram Mandal, E.G.District. 4 The Executive Engiener, Godavari Headworks, Dowlaiswaram, E.G.District. 5 The Dy. Executive Engineer, SACB Sub-Division-II, D. Gannavaram, E.G.District. 6 The Dy. Executive Engineer, SRP Sub -Division-I, Gokavaram, E.G.District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not paying the compensation to the petitiners lands an extent of Ac. 8-00 covered by R.S.No. 248, P. Gannavaram Village, L. Gannavaram Mandal, E.G.dist, for exavation of earth, at the rate of 2 lacs per acre , as arbitrary, illegal, un-constitutional, and violative of Art. 300-A constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners land an extne tof Ac. 8-00 covered by R.S.No.248 of P. Gannavaram (v) L. Gannavaram Mandal E.G.district. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11641 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation for respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The writ petition is filed in substance seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for excavation of soil in their land in an extent of Ac.8-00 in R.S.No. 248, P. Gannavaram village, L. Gannavaram mandal, East Godavari district. The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioners’ claim is false and that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had obtained soil samples and sent it to the Government Laboratory to ascertain the suitability of the soil for departmental use in respect of soil in R.S.No.247 and not in R.S.No. 248, of P. Gannavaram village. The counter affidavit further asserts that after due processing soil was excavated from the land in R.S.No. 247 and not from the petitioners’ land in R.S.No. 248. The petitioners rely on a letter addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, P. Gannavaram to the Joint Collector, East Godavari district which is an internal correspondence between the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Joint Collector wherein the Mandal Revenue Officer had intimated to the Joint Collector that the aqueduct contractors had dug the lanka land in survey No. 248 for earth in approximately Ac.8-00. The petitioners on the basis of this statement of the Mandal Revenue Officer, P. Gannavaram in the demi-official communication to the Joint Collector, East Godavari presents the claim for compensation in this writ petition. Though the Mandal Revenue Officer, P. Gannavaram is impleaded as third respondent to the writ petition, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the said respondent. The counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent clearly and categorically pleads that there was no excavation of soil from the petitioners’ land in R.S.No.248 of P. Gannavaram village and the earth was excavated only from the land in R.S.No.247 of P. Gannavaram village which does not belong to the petitioners, after a test of the soil in R.S.No. 247 for its suitability for departmental use. In the circumstances above there is a serious dispute as to whether any soil was at all excavated from the petitioners’ land in R.S. No. 248 of P. Gannavaram village. Such disputed questions of fact are essentially to be determined in appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the analysis above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 16-06-2008 Pvks/*