IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1470 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/09/2008 in WP NO : 14823 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Kadam Kandoji S/o. Nageswara Rao R/o. Nuzvid Village & Mandal, Krishna District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Writ Appeal No.1470 of 2008 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 3-respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 18-9-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in dismissing W.P.No.14823 of 2008 filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 02-12-2006, made in C.C.No.1095/NZD/75 by respondent No.2 so far as in respect of land belonging to the petitioner. 3. It is the grievance of the writ petitioner that he is the purchaser of excess land belonged to the original declarant in the land reforms proceedings. The proceedings had taken place about more than 35 years back. It is the further grievance that the declarant suppressed the fact of the land, which was purchased by him, and shown it as surplus land to the Government. 4. But, the learned single Judge has pointed out, after going through the records, that the petitioner, being the purchaser of the land, had knowledge about the pendency of the land ceiling proceedings about more than three decades and in spite of it, he purchased the dispute land. Therefore, the same is at his peril and cannot be challenged at this length of time. There is an observation made by the learned single Judge in the impugned order that if the petitioner is of the view that the declarant had played fraud, he can proceed against the declarant. No procedure had been suggested. 5. In view of the categorical findings on merits made by the learned single Judge in the impugned order, we do not propose to interfere in this writ appeal. 6. Accordingly, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the appellant is at liberty to work out his remedies elsewhere, as permissible under law. 8. However, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant that there was a direction by this Court in other writ petition i.e., W.P.No.4288 of 1992, which was filed by him earlier, that there was a direction to take the land proportionately by all the alignees. 9. Pursuant to the said orders, it appears that notices have been issued to all the alignees and after receiving objections, the possession of the land has been taken by the Government. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for appellant seriously refutes the averment made by the learned Government Pleader that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.4288 of 1992, notices have been served on him. 11. This is another question of fact, which cannot be verified either by the learned single Judge or by this Court. 12. Therefore, as already pointed out, liberty is accorded to the petitioner to work out his remedies in appropriate Court, as permissible under law. 13. Any such authority, before which any claim is made by the petitioner in this regard, shall be to be considered by such authority independently in accordance with law, particularly in view of the observations made by the learned single Judge that in pursuance of the said order passed in the earlier writ petition W.P.No.4288 of 1992, the possession of the disputing land has already taken and the said land was already given possession to 87 beneficiaries towards house-sites on 30-6-2008, which is in dispute. 14. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission, with the above observations and directions. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 26th November, 2008. Ak ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {MSN}