IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17249 of 2007 Between: 1 V.Dwarakanath S/o.Vallabhai 2 N.Rajesh S/o.K.Natarajan 3 Ms.B.Visalakshi D/o.K.Badrinarayana 4 Ms.B.Iswarya Devi Rajyalakshmi D/o.K.Balaji (All R/o. of H.No.32, 10th Avenue, Ashoknagar, Chennai - 600 083.) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer/ Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 The Special Dy. Collector, Special Economic Zone, Unit -4, M.M. Complex, Tirupati (Chittoor Dist.) 3 The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Varadaiahpalem, Chittoor Dist. 5 P.Adikesavulu S/o.Subbaraghava Reddy Matherimitta Village, Chilamuthuru Post, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 P.Dhanakoti S/o.P.Adikesavulu Matherimitta Village, Chilamuthuru Post, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 P.Mohanamma W/o.Adikesavulu Matherimitta Village, Chilamuthuru Post, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.D.HANUMANTH RAO Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for respondent No.6:SRI T.C.D.SEKHAR Counsel for respondent No.7:SRI V.VINOD K.REDDY Counsel for respondent No.5:NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in acquiring the lands of the petitioners and seeking to pay compensation to respondents 6 and 7 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession of Acs.2.59 cents, Acs.2.62 cents and Acs.2.37 cents in Survey Nos.88/1, 88/2 and 89/2 respectively of Metharimetta Panchayat, Thonduru Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Chittoor District. The case of the petitioners is that the above mentioned lands were assigned to one Sri Pothuri Poornanandam, political suﬀerer, in the year 1988 by way of a DKT patta; that respondent No.6 purchased the said land from Pothuri Poornanandam under sale deed dated 31-03-1995 and that the petitioners, in turn, purchased the said lands from respondent No.6 under three diﬀerent sale deeds on 21-11-2001. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have become the absolute owners of the property, the said lands were taken over by respondents 1 to 4 for the purpose of establishing a Special Economic Zone and compensation is proposed to be paid to respondents 6 and 7. At the hearing, Sri D.Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, invited my attention to a copy of the purported D-Form patta dated 06-08-1988 said to have been issued in favour of Pothuri Poornanandam, S/o Pichayanudu, Tenali Village. He also invited my attention to a purported letter dated 24-09- 1997 addressed by Sri P.Sridaran, Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Varadaiahpalem to the Secretary, Thonduru Cooperative Society, Thonduru, wherein it was allegedly stated that P.Dhanakoti - respondent No.6 submitted a representation to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer stating that the above mentioned lands were assigned to a freedom ﬁghter, Sri Poornanandam; that in the year 1988 the said lands were purchased by respondent No.6 and he made a representation to him to delete the said lands from the holding of the Thonduru Cooperative Society. It is also mentioned in the said letter that his veriﬁcation of the revenue records shows that the above mentioned extents were assigned to Sri P.Poornanandam and purchased by respondent No.6 in the year 1995 under a registered sale deed and that the lands were in his possession since then, in respect of which pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued. On the basis of these documents, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though his clients have become lawful owners of the property having purchased the same from respondent No.6 under three separate registered sale deeds in the year 2001, their claims are ignored for the purpose of considering the persons, who are entitled to receive compensation. No counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of respondent No.6. The learned counsel for respondent No.7 strenuously contended that insofar as the extent of Acs.2.62 cents in Survey No.88/2 is concerned, the said land was assigned in favour of respondent No.7 by proceedings No.64/A/4/87 dated 08-10-1987, and therefore, she is entitled to receive compensation in respect of the said land. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondents 1 to 4, the claim of the petitioners that the land was assigned to Pothuri Poornanandam under Political Suﬀerers’ Quota is denied and it is stated that no records are available to show that the land was assigned to him. However, no speciﬁc averment with respect to the nature of the alleged D-form patta ﬁled by the petitioners is found in any of the counter-affidavits. Ex facie, purchase of assigned lands is void under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short “the Act 9 of 1977”). However, while it is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased the properties under registered sale deeds and are in possession of the same since the year 2001, and, therefore, they are entitled to receive compensation; respondent No.7, as noted above, claims her right to receive compensation in respect of Acs.2.62 cents in Survey No.88/2 on the basis of an assignment granted in her favour in the year 1987. As regard the other two parcels of land of Acs.2.59 cents and Acs.2.37 cents, the allegation of the petitioners is that respondent No.6 purchased the property from Poornanandam, the purported original assignee, and from respondent No.6 they purchased the same. For the reasons best known to him, respondent No.6 has maintained stoic silence. The silence on the part of respondent No.6 gives rise to a prima facie presumption that the petitioners’ case regarding their purchase of the property from him is correct. This plea of the petitioners is supported by the registered sale deeds. Whether the title came to be vested in the petitioners in respect of the lands, which admittedly belong to the Government, and were covered by D-Form pattas or not is required to be considered by the competent authority. In view of the conﬂicting stands taken by the parties, I feel that it would be appropriate if the District Collector, Chittoor District-respondent No.3 examines the respective claims of the petitioners, respondent Nos.6 and 7 and decides whether the assignment of the entire extent of land was granted to Poornanandam, that whether respondent No.6 purchased the same from him and the petitioners, in turn, purchased the said land from respondent No.6. He shall also decide whether even if the said claim of the petitioners is correct, such a transaction is in conformity with the provisions of the Act 9 of 1977. If he ﬁnds, with reference to the record, that the assignment was granted in favour of Poornanandam and purchase of the property by the petitioners is not in violation of the provisions of the said Act, then only the petitioners would be entitled to receive compensation. Conversly, if respondent No.3 comes to the conclusion that respondents 6 and 7 are the lawful assignees of the property, they are entitled to receive compensation. If any of the parties is aggrieved by the order of respondent No.3, he/she is entitled to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a civil suit seeking declaration of his/her title. Respondent No.3 shall decide the above mentioned issues, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to all the parties, and communicate the order to them. It is needless to state that till such time as respondent No.3 decides the issues mentioned above, compensation shall not be disbursed to any of the parties. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WVMP No.2030 of 2008 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th September, 2008 vrn