THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22946 of 2010 Dated 22nd November, 2011 Between: Algam Bapuji and others …Petitioners And The District Collector, Adilabad, and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.Surender Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not paying compensation to the petitioners in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.2.03 cents, Ac.1.95 cents, Ac.1.93 cents and Ac.1.95 cents respectively in Survey No.84 of Tungeda Sivar, Rebbena Mandal, Adilabad District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents. The petitioners claim to be landless poor persons and are cultivating the above-mentioned lands since decades without interruption. It is their pleaded case that the respondents have taken over the possession of the said lands in the year 2009 without initiating acquisition proceedings for construction of Jagannathpur project. The petitioners alleged that for the adjoining lands acquired for the same project, the respondents have paid compensation. They have relied upon the copies of pahanies to show that they are in possession of the lands and they have also placed reliance on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 02.10.2009 for rendering justice to them. Even though no counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing them, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are neither the owners nor assignees of the lands, which were taken over for the purpose of the irrigation project. She further stated that even though the petitioners are in unauthorised possession of the lands, they are not entitled to payment of compensation and that the resolution of the Gram Panchayat does not bind the respondents. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even though his clients are not pattadars, since they are in possession of the properties, they cannot be denied payment of compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the persons in respect of the neighbouring lands of the petitioners are paid compensation. In my opinion, a person who is the owner of the property alone is entitled to claim compensation. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that either the lands are private lands owned by them or at least, they were given assignments of the Government lands. Even assuming that the petitioners were in unauthorised occupation, they cannot claim compensation. Indisputably, the lands in question belong to the Government and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim compensation in the absence of any right conferred on them over such lands either by way of pattas or assignments. As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the resolution of the Gram Panchayat cannot bind the respondents. As regards the alleged discrimination, except raising a vague plea, no details have been furnished by the petitioners. As such, this plea cannot be accepted. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.29292 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd November, 2011 VGB