IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23343 of 2000 Between: Mohd. Abdul Raheem, s/o. M.A.Samad, 72 years, occ: Pensioner and Agriculturist, r/o. H.No.11-4-13, Bharath Nagar, Siddipet town and Mandal, Medak District, rep. by its G.P.A. M.A.Samad, s/o. M.A.Raheem, aged 42 years, Occ: Business r/o. 16-2- 874/A/2, Jeevan Yar Jung Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Executive Engineer (IB) Siddipet, Medak District. 3. The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy. 4. The Revenue Divl. Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. 5. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Siddipet, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in taking possession of the land admeasuring Ac.1.03 gts. wet land situated in survey No.1760 and 1761 of Siddipet village and Mandal of Medak District without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional, besides being violative of principles of natural justice, while issuing a consequential direction to the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay compensation in accordance of law from the date of possession or alternately restore the subject land to the petitioner in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.GOVERDHANACHARY (Not present) Counsel for the Respondents: 1. None appeared for R1 and R2. 2.AGP for Land Acquisition for R3 to R5 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23343 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking possession of the land admeasuring Ac.1.03 gts. in Sy.Nos.1760 and 1761 of Siddipet village and Mandal of Medak District without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional. 2. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition represented respondents 3 to 5. 3. In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner stated that he is the absolute owner of Ac.1.03 gts. in the above mentioned survey numbers, that the said land was taken by respondent No.2 without following due process of law, that though the petitioner approached the respondents with representation, dated 05.12.1998, and legal notice, dated 16.12.1999, for payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per gunta with interest at 18% per annum, the respondents have not paid the said compensation and that, after receipt of the legal notice, respondent no.4, by his letter dated 30.12.1999, requested respondent No.2 to send requisition for hearing the land. As respondent No.2 has not taken any follow up action, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. Respondent No.2 ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit along with a map. He denied in his counter aﬃdavit the claim of the petitioner that his land of Ac.1.03 gts. is aﬀected in widening of the bund of Komati Cheruvu. He speciﬁcally stated therein that while the petitioner’s land is situated in Sy.Nos.1760 and 1761, which is beyond survey numbers 1762, 1808 and 1809 and far away from the bund of Komati Cheruvu, the widening of the bund was taken up only in Sy.No.1738 in which the tank is existing. He, therefore, denied the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation. Respondent No.2, in the map ﬁled along with the counter aﬃdavit, indicated the lands of the petitioner situated in Sy.No.1760 and 1761 in green colour and the bund portion in red colour in support of his contention that these lands are far away from the bund and that they are not aﬀected in the bund widening. 5. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the petitioner contraverting these allegations. 6. In the face of the speciﬁc denial by respondent No.2 of the petitioner’s claim that his land is aﬀected in the extension of bund and, in the absence of any weighty evidence produced by the petitioner except the letter addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 to send the requisition, it is not possible for this Court to give a speciﬁc ﬁnding on the plea raised by the petitioner. I have gone through the letter, dated 30.12.1999, addressed by respondent No.4 to respondent No.2 after receiving the legal notice. While referring to the legal notice, respondent No.4 stated that, in the said legal notice, it was informed that the land has been acquired by respondent No.2 for extension of bund without payment of compensation. The tenor of this letter shows that respondent No.4 does not have the knowledge whether respondent No.2 acquired the land or not. He addressed the said letter only based on the information furnished by petitioner in his legal notice. Therefore, this letter cannot be taken as conclusive evidence to show that respondent No.2 has acquired the land of the petitioner for the purpose of widening of the bund. As the claim of the petitioner is required to be adjudicated, on appreciation of evidence to be adduced by the parties, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for payment of compensation. 7. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 01.08.2008 v v