IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3866 of 2002 Between: The Rahulnagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., 1-9-290/1, rep. by its Secretary, Sri S. Ganeswara Rao, Near Post Office, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (INF) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SANKA RAMAKRISHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION. The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 3 to implement orders dated 28- 8-1992 of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1829 of 1988 and to consider to provide alternative land in lieu of payment of compensation to the members of the petitioner- Society. Heard Sri Sanka Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner-Society, and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The main grievance of the petitioner-Society in this Writ Petition is that though it has purchased the property in question under registered sale deeds, compensation was paid to certain third parties, who relinquished their rights over the property in question. The petitioner-Society has been litigating for justice for more than two decades. This Writ Petition represents the second round of litigation, the earlier one having ended with the order of the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition, which confirmed the judgment dated 28- 8-1992 of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1829 of 1988, wherein a direction was given to the respondents to refer the dispute, relating to compensation in respect of the lands in question, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”), to the civil Court within six weeks and deposit the entire compensation in question in the civil Court. The Division Bench also directed to recover the compensation from the persons to whom it has been paid. Since no action was taken, despite the said directions, the petitioner- Society filed the present Writ Petition. After an elaborate order was passed by this Court on 21-12-2006, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed a counter-affidavit, in which he, inter alia, stated as under: “16. It is respectfully submitted that in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.A.1829/1988, dt.28- 8-1992, the following steps will be taken within the next fifteen days: i) A representation has been received from M/s.Rahulnagar Co-operative Housing Society addressed to Land Acquisition Officer dt.24-2- 1986. In the said representation, the President of the Society has stated that around 160 members of the society (List of members is enclosed to the representation) have purchased plots in the acquired lands. However, registered documents have been furnished in respect of 75 plots. In compliance of the court order, the Land Acquisition Officer will be directed to make a reference under Section 18, requesting the Civil Court to adjudicate the claim of the purchasers of the plots and resolve the title dispute. The claims of the purchasers who have furnished registered deeds in support of the claim will be referred to the Civil Court. The claimants who have not furnished registered deeds may also file the same before the LAO so as to enable him to refer these claims as well to the Civil Court. ii) The entire amount of compensation of Rs.21,49,113/- will be deposited in the Civil Court along with the Section 18 reference”. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner- Society, submitted that the Members of the petitioner- Society approached the Government for providing an alternative land; that the officers of the Government identified certain lands in Tatti Annaram; and that the proposals for allotment of alternative land, in lieu of payment of compensation to the petitioner-Society, are under Government’s consideration. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition says that he is not aware of the present position regarding reference of dispute under Section 18 of the Act. Having regard to the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions: (1) Respondents 1 to 3 shall take immediate steps for reference of the dispute under Section 18 of the Act, if not already done; (2) the petitioner-Society shall be free to participate in the reference proceedings and seek enhancement of compensation; and (3) reference of dispute to civil Court does not preclude the Government from allotting and the petitioner-Society from accepting the allotment of alternative land, if the Government chooses to make such allotment in favour of the petitioner- Society. ----------------------------------- - C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 27-2-2008 MNR