IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO. 973 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 04/09/2008 in WP No. 26973 of 2001 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..... APPELLANTS AND K.Vedavyasulu .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL NO. 973 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order, dated 04.09.2008 made in W.P.No.26973 of 2001 by a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and directing the respondents therein to initiate land acquisition proceedings in respect of Ac.1.21 guntas of land in Sy. Nos. 1051 and 1130 of Medchal village and Mandal, Rangareddy District and complete the proceedings within four months, the official respondents preferred this Writ Appeal. The respondent herein filed the above writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the appellants herein in not paying compensation for occupying Ac.2.00 of land in Sy. Nos. 1051 and 1130 of Medchal village of Rangareddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. It is his case that his father was owner of an extent of Ac.11.29 and Ac.4.04 guntas in the above survey numbers respectively, from out of which Ac.6.10 guntas was acquired by the Government in 1960 for construction of quarters and office of the Block Development Officer, Panchayathi Samithi, Medchal. It is further his case that when the appellants herein made an attempt to construct on the land other than the one acquired by them, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 766 of 1985 pleading that the Block Development Officer has unauthorisedly occupied Ac.2.00, other than the land acquired. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.01.1985 observing that no construction can be made over the land in excess of the acquired land, without acquiring such land in accordance with law. Inspite of such an order, the Panchayath Raj Department constructed offices and a hospital was also constructed by the Medical and Health Department over an extent of Ac.2.00 without acquisition. Hence, the present writ petition. The case of the appellants is that father of the respondent had donated the land for construction of a school building over an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas. They denied illegal and unauthorized occupation of Ac.2.00 of land over and above the acquired extent of Ac.6.10 guntas and submitted that prior to the acquisition, in Sy. No.1051, school was in existence and after acquisition various Government buildings were constructed. It is further averred that the office of the Block Development Officer and staff quarters were existing over Ac.6.00 apart from the school in the land admeasuring Ac.2.00, as can be seen from the pahanies for the years 1965-66 to 1976- 77. The Respondent No.4, in compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge has submitted a detailed report, which shows that over an extent of Ac.6.10 there exist MDO’s offices and quarters, Road extension, Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayath Raj and Agricultural Assistant Director and Mandal Godown and Government Hospital. The report further shows that in Sy. No. 1051/C over an extent of Ac.2.09 guntas there exist primary school, over an extent of Ac. 0.28 guntas, an old school building and open space and over an extent of Ac.0.19 guntas, MDO’s office is also existing in the same Sy. No. and in Sy. No.1130/C, over an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas, Government Hospital exists. The learned Single Judge while negativing the theory of gift by the father of respondent, set up by the appellants, in the absence of any documentary proof, has held that even if Ac.0.28 guntas of land is excluded inasmuch as there existed an old school building, there remains Ac.1.21 guntas, over which the rights of the respondent are protected under Article 300A and 31A of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the action of the appellants in utilizing the said land of the petitioner without acquiring the same is illegal and unconstitutional and ultimately directed the appellants as hereinbefore mentioned. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred this Writ Appeal inter alia contending that when forefathers of the respondent has given Ac.2.00 of land for a social cause, way back in 1950, which was not claimed till 2001, the attempt of the respondent to claim the same after five decades cannot be sustained. It is further contended that the respondent and his forefathers having kept quiet without moving little finger in respect of the acquisition, are now estopped for protesting over the constructions in the land in question. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Panchayath Raj and the learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that in terms of the statement of Samithi President recorded by the then District Collector, there is no dispute with regard to the acquisition of land to an extent of Ac.6.10 guntas and compensation had already been paid, which was received without protest. It is further contended that the Primary School, Hospital and the Block Development Officer and Staff quarters were in existence prior to the acquisition and in the absence of any material to show that Ac.2.09 guntas were also acquired, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that there is no dispute with regard to the acquisition of Ac.6.10 guntas, but, however, from out of the total extent of Ac.15.33 guntas, the said extent of Ac.6.10 guntas was taken possession without measurement. Therefore, father of the respondent filed W.P. No. 766 of 1985 seeking a direction to the respondent not to proceed with any sort of construction on the land forming part of Sy. Nos. 1051 and 1130, Medchal village, in excess of Ac.6.10 guntas, for which no compensation was paid. The acquisition of the land belonging to the father of the respondent in the above Sy. Nos. is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the acquisition, an Award bearing No.A5/2100/LA was passed on 22.2.1960, but since the compensation awarded was meager and as the Collector did not refer the matter to the Civil Court for determination of just compensation, he filed W.P. No. 386 of 1960, which was disposed of by this court by order dated 12.07.1961 observing as under: .. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for the issuing of a writ of mandamus directing the Collector to refer the matter to the Civil Court under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and further that he be directed to pay the compensation amount In the counter, the Collector states that he has no objection to referring the case to the Court, that the amount of compensation would be paid in a reasonable time and that the delay is due to exigencies of Government office. As it is stated that the land was acquired long ago, it is essential that the claimant should get his compensation early. Therefore, since the Collector himself undertakes to refer the matter to Court and is prepared to pay the amount of compensation, there should only be an order fixing the time limit for payment of the amount. The amount will be paid on or before 30.9.1961. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the writ petition in view of this order. There will be no order as to costs..” A bare reading of this order goes to show that there is no mention with regard to the acquisition of balance of Ac.2.00, as against the acquisition of Ac.6.10 guntas acquired by the appellants. After a long period of 24 years, father of the petitioner again filed W.P. No. 766 of 1985 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the appellants not to proceed with further construction on the land forming part of Sy.Nos. 1051 and 1130 of Medchal village in excess of Ac.6.10 acquired by them. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.1.1985 directing the appellants not to make constructions beyond the acquired extent of Ac.6.10 guntas unless such land is also acquired or taken possession of, according to law. There is nothing on record which suggests that father of the respondent has taken any step from 1961 till 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 26973 of 2001 seeking compensation for occupying Ac.2.00 of the land in Sy. Nos. 1051 and 1130 in Medchal village and Mandal. In such circumstances, it has to be observed that nearly after 16 years of the passing of order, not to construct over the land beyond A.6.10 acquired by the appellant, the respondent has filed the present writ petition and the learned Single Judge has called for a detailed report and the appellant No.4 has submitted the same. The pahanies show that from out of the total extent of Ac.16.23 in Sy. Nos. 1051 and 1130, an extent of Ac.6.10 was taken up. The boundaries are for the acquired lands are mentioned as road leading to railway station on north, primary school building on east, Muthenna’s Garden on south and Railway line on West. That apart, it is evident from the reply of the MPDO, Medchal dated 4.2.2007 that prior to the acquisition, the school building is existing, which is admitted by the father of the petitioner in case No. A5/2100/59. In view of the said admission and the factual matrix involved in the present lis and also in view of the abnormal delay in seeking redressal of the grievance as to the title of the respondent over the balance extent of Ac.2.00 of land, we are of the considered view that the respondent has to establish his title over the balance extent of land to which he claims title, which cannot be adjudicated in an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even the affidavit filed support of W.P. No. 766 of 1985 filed by the respondent is conspicuously silent about the extent of land over which he is claiming title. The affidavit filed in support of W.P. No. 386 of 1960 filed by father of the respondent does not also refer to the exact extent of balance land other than Ac.6.10 guntas acquired by the Government. What all is sought in the said writ petition is to direct the respondent therein to pay compensation for the lands acquired and to refer the matter to the civil court for determination of just compensation. Thus, there are laches on the part of the respondent and his father. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the respondent is not entitled to seek the relief because of his own conduct apart from the fact that the respondent has failed to prove their ownership over the balance extent of land other than what is acquired by the Government. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the Writ Appeal setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy September 16, 2009 MAS