IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11305 of 2000 Between: M. Venkataiah S/o. Kistaiah, R/o. 4-1-69, Main Road, Dornakal, Warangal. ...PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Khammam. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, Khammam District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, GarlaMandal, Garla, Khammam District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11305 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in returning the land of an extent of Acs.7.16 gts in Survey No.195 of Buddaram Village, Garla Mandal in Khammam district as per the order dated 09.09.1988 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, in C.C.No.3477/KMM/75 and that of the Additional Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (LRT), Khammam, dated 24.06.1994 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to return the land by considering his representation dated 24.08.1998. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On 02.11.1976, the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, passed an order and issued Form No.VI, declaring that Sri Kaikheshrao Hormunjee Debara @ Keki Babu held 0.3837 standard holding in excess of the ceiling area. After selection of the excess land to be taken over by the Tahsildar, Yellendu, vide his report dated 29.12.1978, Form No.VIII was issued on 20.12.1980 for publication calling for objections. Thereafter, ﬁnal orders were issued on 30.05.1986 under Section 10 (4) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. On 19.01.1987, the petitioner approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Khammam with a plea that the above extent of Acs.13.16 gts of Buddaram village in Survey Nos.187, 188, 191, 192 and 195 is in his possession and that out of the said extent, Acs.7.66 cents was excluded for selection by the declarant. He claimed that the said land is in his possession and enjoyment by virtue of his purchase and also a certiﬁcate was issued under Section 38-E of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (‘the Act’ for brevity). The claim of the petitioner, which was initially made before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, was made over to the Land Reforms Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) for taking a fresh decision. The Tribunal recorded the statement of the petitioner wherein, he stated that an extent of Acs.13.16 gts in Survey No.195 of Buddaram village was purchased on 10.12.1955 from Sri Kaikheshrao Hormunjee Debara @ Keki Babu on sada paper, that for an extent of Acs.3.14 gts in Survey Nos.188/296, 189/297 and 190/298, certiﬁcate under Section 38-E of the Act was issued in favour of his mother by the Deputy Collector, Kothagudem on 26.09.1985 and that after the death of his mother, the said lands had been in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. After perusing the certiﬁed copies of pahanis from the years 1951-52 to 1985-86, the Tribunal was satisﬁed that the family of the petitioner had been in possession of the said property and it directed that an extent of Acs.16.30 gts (Acs.16.76 cents) in Survey Nos.188/296, 189/297 and 190/298 and 195 be deleted from the standing holding of the declarant. The Tribunal also directed the Sub-Collector, Kothagudem to return the lands, if assigned, under Rule 9 (4) in Form No.XI to the petitioner. Subsequently, in proceedings dated 26.04.1994, the Additional Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (LRT) Khammam, directed that the land, which was taken possession, be returned to the petitioner in form No.XI under Rule 10-A of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. As these two orders have not been complied with by the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Today, at the hearing, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue handed over counter aﬃdavit sworn to by the Tahsildar, Garla Mandal, Khammam District, wherein the above mentioned facts have not been disputed. He, however, stated that the Government has taken possession of an extent of Acs.5.52 cents in Survey No.195. He also avered that the land was taken possession as far back as 01.08.1886 and pattas were granted to various persons by 12.08.1986 and hence, the land could not be and returned to the petitioner. He further stated that the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer and the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer addressed letters to the District Collector to permit the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to submit proposals under the Land Purchase Scheme through the Project Oﬃcer, I.T.D.A., in order to make payment of value of the land to the petitioner and the District Collector vide his letter dated 16.10.2002 addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., sought for permission to approve the said proposal and the Chief Commissioner in his letter dated 29.05.2007 addressed to the Secretary to the Government stated that as the land is situated in an agency area, he advised the Government to explore the possibilities of applying the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas, Land Transfer Regulation (1) of 1959, as the petitioner is not a tribal. From the facts narrated above, it is clearly evident that the respondents failed to carry out the two orders passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam, in exercise of its statutory power. While there is a dispute regarding the extent of land taken possession – the petitioner claims that an extent of Acs.7.16 gts in Survey No.195 was taken possession, the respondents now claimed that only an extent of Acs.5.52 cents was taken over in Survey No.195/A – leaving aside this controversy, the fact remains that even the said extent of Acs.5.52 cents is not returned to the petitioner. The two orders of the Tribunal had become ﬁnal. Therefore, the respondents are under obligation to return the said land to the petitioner. While the respondents have not produced any material to show that at an earlier point of time, they informed that either the Tribunal or the petitioner that the land is not available as the same was already distributed, along with the counter aﬃdavit, internal correspondence is ﬁled to show that the land is distributed as far back as 12.08.1986. Even the alternative proposal of compensating the petitioner by paying its value has not materialized so far though decades have passed by since then. By any standard, the action of the respondents cannot be justiﬁed in law. Evidently, in order to overcome the present situation, in which the respondents are, the Joint Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration addressed letters dated 29.05.2007 to explore the possibility of raising the bogie of the transaction being hit by the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas, Land Transfer Regulation (1) of 1959. I am afraid; it is too late in the day for the respondents to embark upon such a misadventure. So far, no action has been initiated to declare the purchase of the land by the petitioner as contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas, Land Transfer Regulation (1) of 1959. In my considered view, the inaction of the respondents in compensating the petitioner for deprival of his property is in negation of the Constitutional Right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate immediate steps to determine the actual extent of the land belonging to the petitioner taken possession by the respondents in pursuance of the declaration ﬁled by Kaikheshrao Hormunjee Debara @ Keki Babu, the vendor of the petitioner. He shall take the market value existing as on today and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of eight {8} weeks from today. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to claim compensation towards damages for depriving the petitioner of the land used till the payment of its market value. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 24th July 2008 RRB