HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.26546 of 2010 Date : 3-12-2011 Between: Tatimakula Venkata Sailaja .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretar, Revenue (Land Acquisition) Department, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri L.J. Veera Reddy Counsel for respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be the pattadar of Ac.4-00 of land in Sy.No.1357/7 of Vempalli village and Mandal, Kadapa District, ﬁled this Writ Petition for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation in respect of the said land which was taken over for the purpose of construction of the Government Polytechnic College, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claimed that she was assigned the above mentioned land in the year 1995 and that in recognition thereof, pattadar passbook and title deed were issued in her favour. It is her further case that respondent No.2 has issued a notice on 10-11- 2008 wherein it is stated that the land o f Ac.4-00 besides some other lands mentioned therein are recorded as Government lands, but the names of the petitioners and others were incorporated in the Village Revenue record against the said lands. The petitioner and others were therefore called upon to show cause why the said lands shall not be taken possession by the respondents and also to produce evidence, such as DKT pattas, pattadar passbooks and title deeds for claiming compensation in respect of the said lands. In response to the said notice, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 with relevant documents except the DKT patta and thereafter no compensation has been paid even though the land was taken over. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, the claim of the petitioner that she was granted DKT patta is denied. It is stated that one Smt. Sivadanam Rangamma w/o. Subbarayudu of Vempalli village, was assigned the land vide DKT No.58/1989, dated 24-9-1989; that the original ﬁle relating to the assignment made in favour of the said person is traced and the same is available in the oﬃce and that the enquiries revealed that the petitioner is in possession of land which was assigned to the said Rangamma in violation of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 and that after issuing notice in Forms I and II, the land was resumed vide proceedings No.A/672/08, dated 9-12-2008. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. At the hearing, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the very notice itself issued by respondent No.2 on 10-11-2008, has described the petitioner as pattadar even though in the column relating to possessor, the land is described as vacant. He further stated that the DKT patta could not be produced by the petitioner since it was handed over in the oﬃce of respondent No.2 at the time of applying for pattadar pass book and title deed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has opposed the above contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The question whether DKT patta was granted to the petitioner or not is a seriously disputed question of fact. The best evidence that would have come to the rescue of the petitioner is the patta itself. The petitioner failed to produce the said evidence on the ground that she has handed over the same to respondent No.2 in connection with obtaining pattadar pass book and title deed. No proof of the petitioner handing over the DKT patta in the oﬃce of respondent No.2 is ﬁled. In the absence of such proof, the claim of the petitioner that she has handed over the DKT patta in the oﬃce of respondent No.2 cannot be accepted. In the absence of any evidence of grant of DKT patta in favour of the petitioner, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the version of the respondents that the petitioner was not the assignee and that one Sivadanam Rangamma was the assignee. The averment of respondent No.2 that the land was resumed on 9-12-2008 from the assignee is not disputed by the petitioner even though the learned counsel appearing for her stated that no such proceeding has been served on her. Whether the order resuming the land was served on the petitioner or not, the fact remains that an order of resumption was passed on 9-12-2008. The very basis of the petitioner for claiming compensation is the purported DKT patta. Whoever may be the assignee, when the patta itself is stated to have been cancelled and the land is resumed, until the order of resumption is set-aside and the petitioner’s right over the land is established, she cannot claim compensation in respect of the land in question. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to question the order of resumption if she feels aggrieved thereby. As a sequel, WPMP No.33909/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. _________________________ Date : 3-12-2011 Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy AM