IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23376 of 2008 Between: 1 Gorrela Suresh, S/o. Ramu, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 Pemchakatla Satyavathi, W/o. Yerrayya, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Duvvi Janakai Kumari, w/o. Sudershana Rao, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 Gorrela Srinivasa Rao, s/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 Bandaru Dhanalakshmi, W/o. Lakshminarayana, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 6 Bandaru Veera Venkata Apparao, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 7 V.V. Lakshmana rao, s/o. Chandra Rao, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 8 S. Prameela Devi, W/o. Satyanarayana, R/o. Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Revenue Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments, Tilak Road, Boggulakunta, Hyderabad. 3 Sri Uma Markendeswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Godavari Bund, Rajahmundry, East Godvari District, rep by its Executive Officer 4 The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 5 The Tahsildar, Rajahmundry Urban, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 6 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 7 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 8 A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Rep by its District Manager, Kakinada. .....RESPONDENTS 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 or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the 4(1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, dated 31-7-2008 in Ref No. G-3/4707/2008 issued by the Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada proposing to acquire the land measuring Ac. 7-75 cents in Survey No. 8/1, Hukunpeta Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, E.G. District, belonging to the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings in the matter and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M. LAKSHMANA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 23376 of 2008 Order: The relief sought for in the writ petition is for a Mandamus declaring the 4(1) notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) proposing to acquire the land admeasuring Ac.7-75 cents in Survey No.8/1 of Hakimpeta village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to the third respondent as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners herein, eight in number, claim to be the tenants of an extent of Ac.18.00 of land in Survey Nos.8, 9, 10, 216, 317, 149/1 and 316 of Rajahmundry town. The land is said to be belong to the third respondent-Devasthanam. The petitioners contend that their forefathers were the tenants, that they were in possession of the land for the past 55 years and that they have been cultivating the said land and have been paying rents regularly. It is further averred that petitioners 1 to 4 are in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.3.00 each and that petitioners 5, 6, 7 and 8 are in possession of Ac.2.00 of land each. Since the third respondent sought to take steps to evict them, the petitioners invoked this Court’s jurisdiction filing W.P. No. 13473 of 2001 and this Court, by order dated 26.02.2002, disposed of the said writ petition recording the submission made on behalf of the third respondent that they would not proceed with the matter except in accordance with law. While matters stood thus, the Government proposed to acquire the land for the public purpose of providing house sites/houses to weaker sections. Since the petitioners land was chosen for grant of house sites, and they were informed accordingly, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 22956 of 2006 and this Court, by order dated 08.11.2006, disposed of the writ petition recording the submissions made on behalf of the Government that there was no proposal pending for acquiring the lands and that none of the respondents were moving to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in question. Subsequently, in W.P. No. 10547 of 2006, the Government filed an application by way of WPMP No.5257 of 2008, seeking permission of the Court to allot alternative lands at a nearby place to the third respondent temple in lieu of the land belonging to the temple which was sought to be acquired. This Court allowed the application holding that, by virtue of the decision taken by the Government, the Temple concerned did not suffer any loss. Thereafter, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the District Collector, East Godavari on 31.07.2008 proposing to acquire this extent of Ac.7-75 cents along with some other lands. The petitioners filed W.P. No. 17462 of 2008 wherein they sought a mandamus to declare the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector, East Godavari District to acquire the land admeasuring Ac.7-75 cents in Survey No.8/1 of Hakimpeta village, Rajahmundry Rural mandal, East Godavari District, belonging to the third respondent as arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop all further proceedings. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition by order dated 12.08.2008, permitted the petitioners to submit their objections under Section 5-A of the Act within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and directed the fourth respondent, thereafter, to consider the objections and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law before taking further steps. Till such time status quo was directed to be maintained. Section 5-A enquiry was conducted and, eventually, an award was passed on 12.08.2008, whereby the third respondent-Temple was allotted different extents of land elsewhere in lieu of the subject lands acquired by the Government for providing house sites to weaker sections. The petitioners claim to have come to know about the award on 10.10.2008 and, on the ground that taking away these lands would affect their livelihood, they invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. Sri M. Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, while the petitioners tenancy may have statutorily come to an end on the coming into force of Act 30 of 1987, now that the lands have been acquired by the Government, the nature of the lands have changed from that of endowment lands to that of Government lands and, since the petitioners continue to remain in possession of the said lands, and have been paying rents regularly, they must be deemed to be the tenants of Government lands and consequently entitled for statutory protection and cannot, therefore, be evicted from the lands in question. Learned counsel would further submit that these lands are marshy lands, are incapable of being utilized for construction of houses under the Indiramma Housing Scheme, that no useful purpose would be served in utilizing these lands for housing purposes and that, instead, the petitioners could as well be permitted to continue to cultivate the lands in question. Under Section 82(1) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 any lease of agricultural land belonging to or given or endowed for the purpose of any institution or endowment subsisting on the date of commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, held by a person who is not a landless poor person, stand cancelled. The Act and the rules made thereunder prescribe a procedure for a person to be declared as a landless poor person. It is not even the case of the petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, that they come under the category of landless poor. It is evident, therefore, that consequent on Act 30 of 1987 coming into force with effect from 23.05.1987, the lease, if any, in favour of the petitioners stood cancelled, their status ceased to be that of lessees and they were evidently trespassers on the land thereafter. Since the petitioners had no right whatsoever to continue to remain in possession of the said lands after Act 30 of 1987 came into force, the submission now made that on the acquisition of these lands by the Government they are entitled for statutory protection does not merit acceptance. The petitioners were trespassers over the said endowment land from May 1987 onwards and, even after acquisition, their status does not change. Another aspect required to be noted is that the relief sought for in this writ petition is identical to the relief sought for in W.P. No.17462 of 2008, wherein this Court refused to interdict the Section 4(1) notification, and merely permitted the petitioners to submit their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Since this Court did not declare the 4(1) notification to be illegal, it is not open to the petitioners to seek an identical relief in a subsequent writ petition. Sri M. Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, would, however, point out that, while in the prayer portion of the affidavit the petitioners have questioned the award, a mistake had been made in drafting the prayer portion of the writ petition in that, while the prayer in the affidavit is a challenge to the award, the relief sought for in the writ petition reflects as if it is the notification under Section 4(1) which is under challenge. Learned counsel would state that this mistake has, obviously, crept in by oversight and that an error by his staff should not adversely affect the interest of the petitioners herein. Even if the said submission of the learned counsel were to be accepted, it must be born in mind that a Division Bench of this Court, by order in WPMP No.5257 of 2008 in W.P. No. 10547 of 2006, had specifically accorded permission to the Government to provide alternative lands at a different place in lieu of the land acquired for providing house sites/houses to weaker sections. The said order of the Division Bench is binding on this Court and no order contrary thereto can be passed. In any event, an award has been passed after the Government exercised its powers of eminent domain. The Supreme Court, in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd., V. State of Rajasthan[1], held that once an award became final, the writ petition filed challenging the said award is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 28.11.2008 Nsr [1] 2008(2) SCALE 271