IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4092 of 2008 Between: Shaik Shabana Begum D/o. Naseeb Jan R/o. Rajula Colony, Rayachoty Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 Thasildar, Sambapalli Mandal, Kadapa District. 3 Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, Rayachoty, Kadapa 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 issue a writ of Mandamus in trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.86 cents in Sy.No.469/1 at Motakatla Village, Sambepalle Mandal, Kadapa District as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of Land Acquisition Act and also in violation of Articles 19(1)(g) 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment over the said land without following due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.N.PRASHANTH Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4: Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.4092 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is resident of Rayachoty town. She was assigned agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3.86 in survey No.469/1 of Motakatla village of Sambepalle Mandal in Kadapa District vide DKT patta No.1/1409, dated 27.05.2000. She took possession of the land and was raising crops depending on rainfall. She alleges that on 21.02.2008, respondents 2 and 3 made attempts to interfere with her possession and also threatened to lodge a police complaint. Petitioner asserts that no due process of law was followed and proceedings under land acquisition was not initiated. Therefore, she filed instant writ petition seeking appropriate writ of Mandamus for declaration and direction. Tahsildar, Sambepalli Mandal, filed counter affidavit. It is alleged that petitioner never cultivated the land and kept the land vacant. Therefore, for violation of conditions of DKT patta, action was initiated for cancellation of patta. A show cause notice, dated 27.02.2006 was issued. As the same could not be served, notices are issued again on 08.03.2006 and 16.03.2006. These notices also could not be served and therefore, the contents of notice are published by Tom Tom in the village and notice was affixed to a stick planted in the subject land. As there was no response, Mandal Revenue Officer passed orders on 04.04.2006 resuming the land. Subsequently, the land was handed over to Electricity Department on 11.05.2007, who started construction. Writ petition is also opposed on the ground that effective alternative remedy is not available. Fourth respondent has filed counter affidavit through Superintending Engineer (SE), TLC Circle. It is stated that for the purpose of construction of 132 KV/33 KV substation at Mutakatla village, SE has sent requisition to revenue authorities for providing land admeasuring Acs.5.00. After completing formalities, alienation proposals in respect of lands in survey No.469/1, 470/9 and 470/8 were sent to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA). District Collector while sending proposals permitted the Tahsildar to handover possession. Accordingly, land was handed over to Electricity Department on 11.05.2007. Subsequently, CCLA accorded permission for alienation vide proceedings, dated 29.05.2007 on payment of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per acre as market value. The District Collector authorised Tahsildar to collect the amount. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid vide challan, dated 09.07.2007 towards cost of the land. After taking possession of the land, work of construction of 132 KV substation has been taken up. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned standing counsel for A.P.TRANSCO. Limited question is whether the petitioner was dispossessed by due process of law. A perusal of affidavit filed by Tahsildar would belie any contention that due process was not followed. This is altogether different question. Whether due process was followed while depriving a person of her property is legally compliant. If the petitioner is aggrieved, her remedy is to approach the Tahsildar with a copy of this order. This Court also observes that even if the land is resumed for public purpose from assignee, Government has to pay compensation. However, assignment is cancelled on the ground that terms of assignment/grant is not complied with, different considerations would arise. Therefore, petitioner is given liberty to prefer an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer under BSO 15(15) after obtaining a copy of order of resumption, dated 04.04.2006, if not already furnished to petitioner. As and when appeal is filed, appellate authority may dispose of the appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of appeal. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.11.2008 pln