IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 18467 of 1998 Between: 1 Changanti Subbarao, S/o.Late Sri Jaggaraju, Hindu, R/o.D.No.49-28-22/A, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam. 2 Chaganti Suryanarayana Murthy, S/o.Late Sri Jaggaraju Hindu,R/o.D.No.49-28-22/A, Madhuranagar, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Director of Settlements, Govt. of A.p.,Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 3 Jt.Collector & Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam. 4 Easte Abolition TribunalRep.by its Chairman, District Judge),Visakhapatnam. .....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, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus particularly one in the nature of Mandamus Declaring the impugned proceedings No.Ref.C2/5263/97 dt.27-01-98 of the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal and without application of Mind and by nullifying the same direct 1st respondent to include the names of the petitioners in the date sheet and rent reduction Statement of Burugupalem and Kotavuratla Zamin Estate and forward the same to the 4th respondent and further direction tot the 4th respondent to decide and disburse our share of Compensation due with interest lying to the credit of Top 113/62 expeditiously. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No.Ref./C2/5263/97, dated 27.01.1998 of the 1st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary and to direct him to include their names in the data sheet and rent reduction statement of Burugupalem and Kotavuratla Zamin Estate and forward the same to the 4th respondent with a direction to decide and disburse their share of compensation due with interest lying to the credit of TOP 113 of 1962 expeditiously. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the brothers and sons of late Jaggaraju and they are the landholders and inamdars of Kotavuratla Zamin Estate in Narsipatnam taluk in Visakhapatnam District having an extent of land of Ac.169.50 cents in Burugupalem which was taken over by the government under the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 26 of 1948 (for short “the Act”). The possession of the land was actually taken over by the government on 28.09.1950, but the compensation has not been paid in respect of the said lands. It is stated that the land was left in possession and occupation of cultivating tenants and the said tenants are now continuing in possession with permanent rights of occupancy and they have deprived of their possession. It is stated that though more than 25 years have been elapsed, compensation payable to the land owners has not been paid and their names have not been shown in the data sheet and rent reduction statement. It is further stated that they made a representation before the Joint Collector and Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam on 01.07.1996 for the purpose of including their names in the rent reduction statements and for payment of appropriate compensation. The petitioners have not sought for any relief against the Joint Collector in not considering and disposing of the said representation. The only prayer in the writ petition is to set aside the Memo bearing Ref.C2/5263/97, dated 27.01.1998 of the Director of Settlement, A.P. Hyderabad wherein the representation dated 09.01.1998 of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the Board of Revenue, A.P. Hyderabad vide Proceedings Mis.No.532/76, dated 05.10.1976 seeking revision of compensation by the land holders was already decided under Section 39(5) of the Act and therefore, the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to exercise its revisional powers in favour of the landholders under Section 39(6) of the Act once again. The petitioners question the said order seeking direction to include their names in the data sheet and rent reduction statement of Burugupalem and Kotavuratla Zamin Estate and forward the same to the 4th respondent with a direction to decide and disburse their share of compensation. A counter has been filed stating that Kotavuratla Zamin Estate was notified under Section 1(4) of the Act, consequently the final basic annual sum and total compensation were determined under Section 39(1) of the Act by the Director of Settlement and against the said orders, the landlords preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue under Section 39(5) of the Act contending that the income towards jodi was not taken into account by the Director of Settlement while determining the compensation. But the Board of Revenue vide its order in B.P.Rt.No.2796/65, dated 13.09.1965 revised the final basic annual sum and total compensation under Section 39(5) of the Act directing the Director of Settlement to furnish to the Tribunal the particulars of Kattubadi to be recovered from each of the darmila inamdar shown in the enclosed annexure. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapalli, but the names of the petitioners were not included. The petitioners have not taken any steps in not including their names as darmila inamdars. It is further stated that the proposals to include the names of the petitioners as darmila inamdars was disallowed by the Settlement Officer, Anakapalli under Section 15(1) of the Act. Thus, the revised proposals sent to the Board exhibiting the share of ryotwari assessment of darmila inamdars vide proceedings Ref.No.C1/13708/75, dated 06.08.1975 have become final and the Board has already fixed the compensation under Section 39(5) of the Act vide B.P.Mis.No.532/76, dated 05.10.1976 after hearing all the parties. Admittedly, the petitioners have not challenged the orders of the Board of Revenue and the proposals to include their names as darmila inamdars and the orders of the Board of Revenue was not at all revised in any proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents have admitted in the counter stating that the lands have been taken over by the government from the petitioners and therefore, it cannot be said that they are not in possession as on the date of the notification. Even assuming that the petitioners are the darmila inamdars according to their admission the lands were in occupation of the tenants and if that being so, unless their rights and privileges are determined and recognized by the Settlement Officer in accordance with law, they are not entitled for any compensation. The petitioners have not taken any steps for determination of their rights by the primary authority. Therefore, the question of including their names in the data sheet and payment of compensation does not arise. In the instant case, the Assistant Settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta to the persons who were found in possession of the same. It is stated that the names of the petitioners as darmila inamdars are wrongly shown against Sri Venkateswara Swamy Vari Temple Institution under column 14 of final compensation proposals sent by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Anakapally. The petitioners have not questioned the final compensation proposals sent by the then Assistant Settlement Officer in his Ref.No.R.9232/61, dated 24.09.1961 and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation as long as they effectively take steps for inclusion of their names in the darmila inamdars and establish their right claim and privilege. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that these disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into, in the writ petition and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:20.02.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GMS