IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20680 of 2005 Between: Smt. B. Vinodhini, W/o. Late B. L. Sailoo, R/o. H.No. 1-7-511/4, Gemini Colony, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings Department, Burugula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Tank Bund, Beside Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Engineer, Roads & Buildings, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Attapur (V), Rajendranagar, R.R. District. 5 The Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings, City Roads, A.C. Guards, Besides Mahaveer Hospital, Hyderabad. 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS POLAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondents 1, 2 & 5: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS Counsel for respondents 3, 4 & 6 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking away the property of the petitioner admeasuring about 3,000 square yards of land from out of Ac.0.38 guntas in Survey No.1 of Raidurga Panmaktha Village for laying a road leading from Mehadipatnam to Lingampally (Old Bombay road) without following due process of law and paying compensation as illegal, arbitrary and opposed to Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings for the land taken by the respondents and pay compensation or alternatively direct the respondents to provide suitable alternative and equivalent value property in nearby area. In her affidavit, the petitioner averred that the property in dispute, which is in Survey No.1 of Raidurga Panmaktha Village, Sherlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, originally belongs to one M.Sathyamma, that the petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.38 guntas from Sri T.Vikram, who is the General Power of Attorney holder of Sathyamma, on 17-02-1985 by an unregistered sale deed, that she got the said unregistered sale deed regularized under Section 5-A of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 vide proceedings dated 25-03-1994 of the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the petitioner’s name was also recorded in the Revenue Records as evident from the pahanies filed by her for the years 1995- 96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. The petitioner also referred to the statement filed by the original pattadar in the year 1991 before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority declaring her properties including the one sold to the petitioner and that the Special Officer in his proceedings dated 07-08-2001 declared that Survey No.107 of Raidurga Navakhalsa and Survey Nos.1 and 85 of Raidurga Panmaktha Villages fall under the peripheral area and entitled for exemption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.733 dated 31-10-1988. The petitioner alleged that during the year 2002, the Roads and Buildings Department illegally encroached into an extent of 3,000 square yards forming part of said Ac.0.38 guntas in Survey No.1 of Raidurga Panmaktha Village belonging to the petitioner and laid the road without acquiring the land and that for more than 2½ years, the petitioner went around the respondents for payment of compensation and that as the respondents did not redress her rightful grievance, she filed the present writ petition. Except respondent No.5, no other respondents filed counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5, who is the Executive Engineer (R & B), City Roads Division, Hyderabad, it is stated that the Government has taken a decision to widen the road from KM 1/7 to 11/0 (Towlichowki-Gachibowli-Kothaguda) on intermediate ring road under World Bank financial assistance and that the work was commenced from 17-09-1999. It is further averred that the National games were scheduled to be held from December, 2002 and on account of which road widening work as a part of access to Gachibowli Stadium was undertaken, that respondent No.6 is the competent authority to acquire the land and hand it over to respondent No.5, by following due procedure in law, and that accordingly, respondent No.5 acquired the land and handed over the same to the Roads and Buildings Department. He further stated that the panchanama, under which the possession was handed over, does not contain the name of either the petitioner or the original pattadar M.Sathyamma. From the facts noted above it is clear that the petitioner is asserting her valuable right in the property, which was allegedly taken by the respondents for the purpose of construction of a road. In the absence of any counter-affidavit filed by any of the respondents, except respondent No.5, and even the said respondent not specifically denying the title of the petitioner in his counter-affidavit, which borders on vagueness, the claim of the petitioner that she is the owner of the property and that the same was taken over for the purpose of construction of road stands unrebutted. It is a matter of surprise that in a case of this nature, where right to a valuable property is claimed, respondents, 3, 4 and 6, who are concerned with the dispute raised by the petitioner, failed to file any counter-affidavit though nearly three years elapsed from the time of filing the writ petition. Their failure to file the counter-affidavit virtually disabled this Court to give a specific finding on the plea of the petitioner that she is the absolute owner of the property. While exercising the writ jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to readily accept the petitioner’s plea that she is the owner of the property merely on account of the failure of the respondents to deny her claim to title. In cases of this nature, the Court expects diligence and alacrity on the part of the State and its functionaries in order to assist the Court in addressing the grievances of the citizens and granting appropriate reliefs to them. Faced with the situation, as described above, this Court is left with no option other than disposing of the writ petition with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider and examine the grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition. He shall give a notice to the petitioner and after hearing her, or any one representing her, if he comes to the conclusion that the property, which was allegedly taken over for the purpose of construction of road, belongs to her, he shall initiate immediate steps to compensate her for taking over of the land, in accordance with law, either by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or any other legal process which is permissible in this regard. Respondent No.3 shall complete this exercise, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP Nos.26398 of 2005, 4593 and 27518 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 27th June, 2008 Note: 1. Office to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 2. Issue C.C in ten days vrn