THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 17411 of 2009 Dated: 20.09.2010 Between: The District Fisheries Cooperative Society, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And The District Collector, Visakhapatnam and 6 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17411 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner claims to be a Fishermen Society registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. It is stated that the fishermen community have also formed another society under the name and style of Durgalamma Salt Manufacturing Society, which was also registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. On a request made by the petitioner-society, the District Collector, Visakhapatnam had allotted Ac.101.00 cents of land situated in Sy.Nos.365 to 385 of Vada Narsapuram Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District with a view to create employment to all the fishermen members. Thereafter, the said land was converted into salt fields under the supervision of the 6th respondent, who was the then President of the petitioner-society. However, the 6th respondent had started executing illegal registered lease deeds in favour of the private persons. The 6th respondent had also created benami pattas in favour of his family members in respect of Ac.48.61 cents out of the assigned land and obtained pattadar pass-books and title deeds. Having come to know of the said illegal activities, the petitioner-society made a representation before the 5th respondent-Joint Director of Fisheries to resume the land to the petitioner- society by taking appropriate action against the 6th respondent. In pursuance thereof, having conducted a detailed enquiry, the 5th respondent submitted his report to the 1st respondent-District Collector for necessary action against the 6th respondent. In the meanwhile, the entire extent of Ac.101.00 cents of land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for setting up Naval Alternative Operative Base. As the 6th respondent was claiming compensation on the basis of the benami pattas possessed by his family members, the petitioner-society raised an objection and made a representation to the respondents 1 to 4 requesting not to pay the compensation amount to the 6th respondent. As the objections raised by the petitioner-society were ignored, the petitioner-society filed W.P.No.18693 of 2007 in which this Court by order dated 10.09.2007 initially granted stay of disbursement of compensation to the 6th respondent. Subsequently, by order dated 15.12.2008, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam to conduct enquiry as to whom the land has to be handed over. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice to all the concerned. In response to the same, the petitioner- society filed objections stating that the above land was allotted for the welfare of the petitioner-society. The 2nd respondent by order dated 06.07.2009 rejected the claim made by the petitioner-society and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the exgratia to the D-Form pattadars. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed, contending inter alia that the impugned order dated 06.07.2009 is contrary to the findings recorded by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his report dated 29.04.2002. In the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, the allegation that the 6th respondent had created benami pattas in favour of his family members and obtained pattadar pass-books has been denied. It is further stated that the land in question was assigned by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rambilli to certain individuals during the year 1988 and subsequently during the year 1991, show cause notices were issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer calling upon the assignees to show cause as to why the assignments should not be cancelled for violation of the conditions of assignments. Aggrieved by the same, the assignees filed W.P.Nos.13710, 13713, 13714, 13715 and 13717 of 1994. By order dated 28.07.1994 in W.P.No.13710 of 1994 this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeals pending before him. Accordingly, after conducting a detailed enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer by order dated 11.12.1997 having found that the land in question to an extent of Ac.101.00 cents was never allotted to the Society as contended by the petitioner, upheld the assignments. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18369 of 1997, dated 15.12.2008, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued notices to all the concerned calling for objections. Though the petitioner-society claimed rights over the land in question, no documentary evidence could be produced to substantiate the claim that the said land was allotted by the District Collector to the Society. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner-society was rejected and Tahsildar, Rambilli was directed to pay the exgratia to the genuine assignees after making fresh enquiry. It is further stated that the Regional Deputy Director of Fisheries, Visakhapatnam had also reported that no documentary evidence was produced before them to show that the land in question to an extent of Ac.101.00 cents covered by Sy.Nos. 365 to 385 was assigned in favour of the Society. Hence, the impugned order dated 06.07.209 was rightly passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner-society. The 7th respondent, who got herself impleaded contended that she is one of the possessors of the land in question having been granted D-Form patta by the Government. It is stated that as the lands have been taken over by the Government, all the 10 persons in occupation who are the assignees, are eligible for receiving the exgratia. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner contradicting the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavits. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the 7th respondent is the wife of the 6th respondent and it is her specific case that an extent of Ac.4.88 cents out of the land in question was assigned in her favour and D-Form patta was granted for cultivation. It is also pleaded by the 7th respondent that an extent of Ac.46.00 out of the total land of Ac.101.00 cents was assigned to different persons including the 7th respondent for cultivation and that they had converted the said lands into fish ponds by investing huge amounts. It is also stated that though the D-Form pattas granted in their favour were once cancelled during the year 1993 on the ground that the formation of fish ponds in the assigned lands was in violation of the grant, the appeals preferred by them were allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the cancellation orders were set aside. By virtue of the said orders, the 7th respondent and other assignees continued in possession till the land was acquired for the purpose of Naval Alternative Operating Base. As the 7th respondent and others were also assignees and the land originally belonged to the Government, the Tahsildar, Rambilli Mandal by proceedings dated 20.08.2007 notified that they would be paid exgratia. As noticed above, the competent authority passed orders mentioning the names of the persons, who are entitled to receive the exgratia. No material could be placed by the petitioner-society before the 4th respondent to show that the Ac.101.00 cents of land was allotted to Durgalamma Salt Manufacturing Society. Even according to the petitioner the said society has become defunct. The petitioners could not produce any material even to show that they are interested in Durgalamma Salt Manufacturing Society. No such material could be produced even before this Court. On the other hand, it was confirmed by the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Visakhapatnam in his letter dated 04.07.2009 that no such land was allotted to Durgalamma Salt Manufacturing Society and that the said society was not registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act. It was also found that the Fisheries Department had not recommended to the Revenue Divisional Officer for allotment of the said land to the society as claimed by the petitioner. The plea of the 7th respondent that the land in question was assigned to 10 persons including the 7th respondent and that they were granted D-Form pattas has been substantiated by the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The impugned order further shows that as per the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, dated 11.12.1997 the land in question was assigned to the assignees and D-Form pattas were granted. It is also relevant to note that when the Tahsildar published the list of beneficiaries who are entitled to receive the exgratia and called for objections, nobody raised any objections. Hence, the impugned order, which was based upon the facts borne out of the record and on proper appreciation of all the relevant factors, cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the writ petition, which is devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 20.09.2010 KLP