IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.7895 of 1995 Between: Adigopula Venkata Rathnam s/o. Subbaiah r/o. Buchireddypalem Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Land Acquisition, Nellore District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi Mandal Nellore District 4 The Superintendent Engineer, P.W.D.(Irrigation) Nellore. ....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or orders declaring the action of the respondents in taking possession of lands of the petitioner Under Sy.No.231/1. situated and adjacent to Kakammavari Cheruvu (Tank) Dagadatti Mandal, Chennur Village, Nellore District to the extent of 3 acres lands without following the procedure established under the land acquisition act and paying compensation to the petitioner till to date as illegal, void and contrary to the land acquisition act besides violative of Articles 14, 21 31-A, and 300-A of Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.RAJA RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be owner and possessor of wet lands situated adjacent to Kakamma Vari Cheruvu in Survey Nos.235/1, 449/1, 236/1 and 167 admeasuring total extent of Ac.8-37 guntas. That the petitioner was granted Raitwari patta by order dated 24-9-1977. It is alleged that the 4th respondent has occupied the petitioner’s land illegally to an extent of Ac.3-00 in survey No.235/1, which is situated adjacent to the Tank (Kakammavari Cheruvu), in order to expand the said Tank and that the petitioner has made series of representations, which were remained unanswered at the end of respondents. The petitioner claims compensation for the said acquisition of land. Since, no action was taken on the representations of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, respondents filed a counter affidavit along with sketch showing the Kakamma cheruvu tank and the land of the petitioner. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has obtained ryotwari patta from the Special Deputy Tahasildar (Inams), Kavali in Survey No.235/1 along with some other survey numbers and that survey Nos.235/1 and 236/1 are adjacent to Kakamma tank. That survey No.235/1 is abetting to western side and survey No.236/1 is abetting to the Eastern side of the Kakamma tank and land covered under survey No.236/2 is classified as tank bund and land covered under survey No. 236/1 is under possession and enjoyment of the petitioner herein. It is also stated that the land in question is in the tank prior to date of grant of ryotwari patta to the petitioner and it is alleged that the petitioner obtained the patta in his favour to get some illegal gain. It is also stated that as per the letter of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Central Division Nellore dt 31-1-1996, no improvement works were executed over the subject tank since 1979. That the petitioner has preferred a suit before the Sub Court, Kovvur and also filed a consumer dispute which was registered as C.D.No.885 of 1992 and the same was disposed of by order dt 5-8-1993 on the ground that the Consumer forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, since the matter is sub judice before the Civil Court. It is also stated that as on the date of resurvey of the land in the year 1961, the subject land was part and parcel of the Kakamma tank. As regards grant of patta to the petitioner, it is stated that the same might have been granted without field inspection or due to wrong identification of the field and that no ryot is entitled to obtain a ryotwari patta unless his possession and enjoyment is proved as on the date of taking over of the village by the Government. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not filed the original of the patta stated to have been granted to him and the very existence of the patta is in dispute and the Xerox copy filed by the petitioner cannot be believed and it is not possible for the respondents to verify the genuineness of the same. It is further stated that even prior to issuance of the alleged patta to the petitioner, the land in question is under submergence as per the village plan. The petitioner has not produced the original patta to verify the truth whether the same is genuine or not. The combined sketch annexed to the counter-affidavit shows that the Survey No.235/1 which is in dispute is shown in green colour and the same is situated adjacent to Survey No.235/2 i.e., Kakamma Cheruvu and it is also shown that the low levels are submerged in water. In the pahanis produced by the learned Government Pleader, though the name of petitioner was shown as owner and pattadar of the land in question, but in the occupation column it was shown as submerged with Kakamma Cheruvu. The contention of the Government Pleader that in the absence of original patta, it is not possible for the authorities to verify the genuineness of the same, has got some force. But, at this stage both the counsel agreed that the matter may be remanded back to the Revenue Divisional Officer with a direction to examine genuineness of the patta granted to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders. In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to produce the original patta granted in his favour before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the same. On filing such original patta and other evidence, if any, the Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to conduct an enquiry and examine the genuineness of the patta granted to petitioner. In case, the patta granted to the petitioner is found to be genuine, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall determine the loss sustained by the petitioner and grant reasonable compensation in accordance with law, for submergence of his land. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 17-11-2004 TVK To 1 The Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Land Acquisition, Nellore District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi Mandal Nellore District 4 The Superintendent Engineer, P.W.D.(Irrigation) Nellore. 5.2CCs to GP for Land Acquisition, High Court of AP, Hyderabad (OUT) 6.2CD copies