THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.28236, 28551, 28283 and 28284 of 2011 Dated 29th December, 2011 Between: Jetti Narasimha and others …Petitioners (W.P.No.28236 of 2011) And The State of A.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endts.IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents (W.P.No.28236 of 2011) Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Ramarao Mavidi Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 4: GP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent No.3: Mrs.V.Preeti Reddy Counsel for respondent No.6: GP for Home Counsel for respondent No.7: Sri V.Venugopala Rao The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This batch of writ petitions are filed by certain individuals, who claim to be the tenants of respondent No.7-Devasthanam, for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing G.O.Ms.No.237, Revenue (Endts.IV) Department, dated 28.03.1990, by apportioning the compensation between them and respondent No.7 in the ratio of 2:1 in respect of the land acquired by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners also sought for a direction not to dispossess them without paying compensation to them. The petitioners claim that they are the tenants of respondent No.7 in respect of the lands, which are acquired for the purpose of respondent No.3. Their grievance is that even though G.O.Ms.No.237, dated 28.03.1990, was issued by the State Government fixing the ratio of 1:2 between the Devasthanam and the tenants in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.144.75 cents in Vepagunta Village acquired by respondent No.3, no compensation is paid to them and that they are sought to be evicted. Respondent No.7 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it has claimed that the entire extent of Acs.144.75 cents of land is owned by the Devasthanam, that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), after holding enquiry under Section 3(3) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), declared that the lands covered by T.D.No.3145 are inam lands situated in an inam village held by the institution vide his order, dated 28.11.1977, that it was clearly mentioned in the said order that 200 cultivating tenants were present at the time of hearing and they have conceded that the lands were inam lands in an inam village and held by the Devasthanam and that none of the cultivating tenants were present at the subsequent hearing. It is further stated that subsequently the Mandal Revenue Officer conducted survey of the land for issue of ryotwari pattas and by order, dated 16.01.1997, in A.I.A.No.52/77, he has issued ryothwari pattas relating to Acs.378.10 cents of land in various survey numbers in favour of respondent No.7 and that these orders have become final. It is also stated that the Land Acquisition Officer passed awards for a sum of Rs.32,47,057.75 ps as compensation and since there were rival claims, the amount of compensation was deposited in the civil Court for determination of the claims under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Respondent No.7 has thus denied the right of the petitioners to receive compensation. From the averments of the counter-affidavit, it appears that after issuance of the said G.O., in the year 1990, the Mandal Revenue Officer has issued ryothwari pattas in favour of respondent No.7 under Section 7(1) of the Act on 16.01.1997 in respect of Acs.378.10 cents of land. At the hearing, Sri Rama Rao Mavidi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the ryotwari pattas granted in favour of respondent No.7 are only in respect of part of the land and that the lands held by his clients are not covered by the said pattas. As far as the first part of the relief claimed by the petitioners is concerned, by G.O.Ms.No.237, dated 28.03.1990, the State Government has fixed the ratio of 1:2 between respondent No.7- Devasthanam and its tenants. The G.O., however, has taken note of the fact that there is a tenure dispute with respect to the lands claimed by the occupants claiming their right as tenants and no such dispute persisted between the Devasthanam and the Government and therefore, there can be no reason for withholding 1/3rd of the amount payable to respondent No.7-Devasthanam as per the ratio of 1:2 fixed in the G.O. Unless and until the petitioners’ rights as tenants of respondent No.7 are declared, they cannot claim compensation in terms of the ratio fixed under G.O.Ms.No.237. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed that so far the dispute as to the tenure of his clients as tenants has not been determined by the competent authority and that their claims are still pending. It is also not in dispute that in view of the competing claims, the dispute was referred to the competent civil Court under Sections 30 and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As such, the petitioners are entitled to participate in the said proceedings and assert their right to receive their share of compensation. Therefore, no mandamus as claimed by the petitioners can be issued. With regard to the second part of the relief, once the land is acquired, respondent No.3 is entitled to take possession. The acquisition proceedings are not under challenge. It is not the case of the petitioners that the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer has not been paid by respondent No.3. The deposit made by it towards compensation is kept in the civil Court deposit by the Land Acquisition Officer while referring the dispute under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners could not receive the compensation amount only for the reason that their status as tenants of respondent No.7 has not been declared by the competent authority. In the light of these facts, the petitioners cannot be allowed to say that they cannot be dispossessed till they receive compensation. As of now, the right of the petitioners as tenants is not declared and even if their status is declared as such, at best they are entitled to compensation at the ratio fixed in G.O.Ms.No.237, dated 28.03.1990. In view of the same, no mandamus not to dispossess the petitioners can be issued. For all the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petitions, the interim orders, if any granted, shall stand vacated and the interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th December, 2011 VGB