IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 1993 of 2000 Between: T.Viswanatham S/o.T.Ramappa Sangareddy Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Distrcit Collector Medak Sangareddy 2 The Executive Engineer P.W.D. Roads& Buildings Sanga Rdddy Division Sangareddy, Medak District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Medak District 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 issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the compensation of Rs. 38,400/- towards land value and Rs.72,600/- towards damages caused to the building bearing No.-1-5-105 situated at Brahmanavadi, Sangareddy, Medak District as per the report of the Advocate Commissioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed and unconstitutional and consequently direct them to pay the compensation forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that the authorities failed to act upon the report submitted by the Advocate- Commissioner with regard to the compensation payable towards the land value and cost of the building in Door No.1-5-105, Brahmanavadi, Sangareddy, Medak District, belonging to the petitioner, which was demolished by the Roads and Buildings Department of the State. The averments made in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition reﬂect that a portion of the petitioner’s building in the said property was dismantled by the respondent authorities along with various other buildings on 21.9.1997 for the purpose of road-widening. Pursuant to the order of this court in W.P. No. 24415 of 1997, it is stated that an Advocate- Commissioner was appointed to assess the loss caused to the land and building owners, owing to such road-widening. It is stated that the Advocate-Commissioner so appointed, conducted an elaborate enquiry and submitted a report stating to the effect that the loss of land was Rs.38,400/- and the loss caused towards damage to the building was quantiﬁed at Rs.72,600/- in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The complaint of the petitioner is that inspite of several representations to the authorities to act upon the said report, there was no response. Accordingly, he ﬁled the present writ petition questioning the inaction of the respondent authorities. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sangareddy, stating to the eﬀect that the land on which the petitioner’s building stood and which was damaged in the process of dismantling and demolition, belonged to the Government. It is further stated that no orders were received from this court subsequent to the interim order passed in W.P. No. 24415 of 1997 with regard to the appointment of Advocate-Commissioner. It is also stated that the petitioner being an illegal occupant of the Government land, is not eligible for compensation as he has no established right over the said land. A reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the petitioner rebutting the contentions raised by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sangareddy, in his counter aﬃdavit. It is stated that the demolished portion of the building of the petitioner falls within private property and the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get compensation as per the assessment made by the Advocate- Commissioner. It is denied that there was any encroachment by the petitioner over the Government land earmarked for road boundary and it is reiterated that the petitioner constructed his house in his own land. The ﬁnal order of this court in W.P. No. 24415 of 1997 was called for and a perusal of the same shows that this court ultimately directed that in the case of demolition of private property, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer or the other authorities shall determine the loss caused to the occupant/occupants on the basis of the assessment to be made by the engineer of the Roads and Buildings Department and take steps thereafter to disburse the amount so quantiﬁed. It was made clear that in the event of the demolition having taken place in property belonging to the Government, the question of payment of damages would not arise and the occupant of such property would only be entitled to remove the material used for construction. In so far as the report of the Advocate-Commissioner is concerned, the ﬁnal order in WP No. 24415 of 1997 appears to have diluted the eﬀect of the same in the light of direction afore stated. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to rely upon the report of the Advocate- Commissioner as a basis for his claim for compensation. Further, the pleadings of the parties referred hereinabove clearly demonstrate that there is a dispute with regard to the status of the land in which the demolition is said to have taken place leading to the petitioner’s claim. It is not appropriate for this court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to venture into disputed questions of fact and more so disputed issues with regard to title over land. Sri Meher Chand Noori, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with his usual fairness, conceded this aspect and placed reliance upon the unreported judgment dated 26.06.2003 in W.P. No. 8040 of 2003 and Batch passed by a learned Judge of this Court in a similar factual scenario, directing the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for payment of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner also should be aﬀorded a similar opportunity to go before the respondent authorities to assert and prove his entitlement to lay a claim for compensation. This submission ﬁnds favour with this court. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sangareddy, Medak District, third respondent herein, within a period of three months from today with all the material available with him to substantiate his claim for compensation in respect of the subject property. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sangareddy, shall pass appropriate orders in the matter after aﬀording due opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar October 24, 2008 Copy within a week //BO// MAS