IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13011 of 1999 Between: Nimmagadda Swaroopa Rani W/o. Surendra Babu, R/o. Durga Agraharam, Opp: Goriyala Doddi, Eluru Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Collector Chilakalapudi, Krishna District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid Division, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bapulapadu Mandal Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SURESH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to implement order, dated 25.03.1987 passed by this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.1409 of 1985 as confirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP.No.1549 of 1988 vide it’s order, dated 10.04.1995. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sri Kadiyala Venkateswara Rao filed a declaration under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Land Reforms Tribunal by its order, dated 20.06.1977 held that his family possessed 2.7016 Standard Holding of land in excess of the ceiling limit. On appeal filed by the declarant, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Vijayawada remanded the case to the Primary Tribunal for fresh disposal. On remand, the Primary Tribunal allowed the claim of the declarant and excluded the land of an extent of Ac.20.00 in R.S.No.344/1 of Medicherla Village from his holding. The said order was questioned by the Government in L.R.A.No.72 of 1984, which was allowed. The adoptive mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Kadiyala Hymavathi filed C.R.P.No.1409 of 1985 in this Court. This Court by order, dated 25.03.1987 allowed the said CRP and upheld the order of the Primary Tribunal in favour of the petitioner therein. SLP.No.15491 of 1988 filed by the Government against the said order was dismissed on 10.04.1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that though notices were issued on 03.04.1996 and 22.10.1998 to the respondents, they failed to implement the order of the Primary Tribunal as confirmed by this Court and the Supreme Court by redelivering the possession of the land of an extent of Acs.20.00. Therefore, she filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed before this Court, letter, dated 10.08.2008 addressed by respondent No.2 to the District Collector, Krishna, wherein he opined that as a result of not returning the land to the petitioner for the last 20 years, great hardship is caused to her and he requested for payment of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the value of the property in lieu of the return of the land, as pattas were granted to the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe and it is not possible to resume the said land from the possession of the beneficiaries. The learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submitted that since the respondents have realized that it is their obligation to either return the land or pay compensation in accordance with law, they have already initiated steps to pay compensation in lieu of return of the land and that the respondents require three (3) months’ time to complete this process and make payment to the petitioner. Sri P.Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will receive compensation subject to her right to seek reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if she is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the respondents. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by allowing the respondents three (3) months’ time from today to pay the compensation computed as per the market value in terms of Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974. Liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court for enhancement of compensation, if she is not satisfied with the quantum of compensation fixed by the respondents. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.15897 of 1999 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th AUGUST, 2008. kvni