IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 23826 of 2007 Between: New Shanthi Automobile, Rep by its Proprietor, M.A. Hakeem, s/o. M.A. Rasheed, Aged about 46 years, Occ : Mechanic, R/o. Sanga Reddy Town, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy 3 The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy .....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 to issue a Writ or any appropriate writ or writs or direction/s more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in dismantling the shed of the petitioner in land admeasuring 0-31 gts in Sy.No. 403/7 situated at Rajampet of Sanga Reddy town as being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to restore the shed in theland of the petitioner and pleased to pass such other order/s this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23826 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is proprietary concern represented by its proprietor – M.A. Hakeem. He claims that he is in possession of land admeasuring 0.31 guntas in survey No.403/7 situated at Rajampet of Sanga Reddy town, for more than twenty years. He has been running an automobile workshop in the name and style of ‘New Shanti Automobile’. He made a representation to second respondent on 20.02.2003 requesting for regularization of the land in his occupation. He also offered to pay the prevailing market rate. His proposal was forwarded to fifth respondent for necessary enquiry. After receiving report, fourth respondent appears to have ascertained market value at Rs.2,50,000/- per acre. When the proposal was communicated second respondent rejected the same on the ground that the land which is situated 100 meters away from national highway No. 9 is valuable. Fourth respondent was directed to identify alternative land of lesser value. The petitioner then filed W.P.No.16186 of 2007 before this Court. By order dated 21.08.2007 this Court disposed of said writ petition directing the Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition (CCLA), first respondent herein, to take a decision or send proposals to Government of Andhra Pradesh for appropriate decision. The petitioner states that even while the matter is pending, on 27.10.2007 respondent Nos.4 and 5 came to his premises and dismantled his workshop. He then made representation on the same day i.e., 27.10.2007 to the respondents for restoration of shed, in vain. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents dismantling his automobile shed as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the shed. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area). The petitioner earlier approached this Court and filed W.P.No.16186 of 2007. At that stage, he sought declaration that refusal by District Collector is illegal and contrary to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.138 dated 09.02.2004. This Court referring to the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975, disposed of said writ petition observing that CCLA may look into the matter and take a decision if it is within his powers or send the proposals to Government for appropriate direction. Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute that the matter is still pending before CCLA. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to make any observation regarding the right of the petitioner to seek regularization of the land. CCLA may consider the proposals pending with him and pass necessary orders. Insofar the relief of the petitioner seeking restoration of shed in the land is concerned, there is no dispute that the shed was dismantled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after dismantling the shed, the respondents did not take possession and that the petitioner is still in possession of the land. This is disputed by learned Assistant Government Pleader. In this background of rival positions with regard to the disputed land, this Court is of the considered opinion that pending consideration by CCLA with regard to the proposals for alienation/regularization of the land in favour of the petitioner, the respondents may not alienate or assign the land to third parties. If the petitioner is still carrying on automobile workshop, he may do so without raising any shed on the land. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20th November, 2008 GHN To 1 The Chief Commissioner, Land Acquisition, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy 3 The Joint Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sangareddy 6 2CCs to GP for Land Acquisition 7 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}