IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20921 of 2005 Between: C.Gurappa and two others. … Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd., by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and Three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri E.Venkata Rao. Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking advance possession of the land of the petitioners admeasuring Ac.1-90 cents comprised in Survey No.824/2 and 825/2B situated in Potladurthy village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Cudapah District, without paying any compensation as illegal. The petitioners also sought for a declaration that the inaction of the respondents in issuing fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) despite lapse of earlier notification dated 15-1-1987 as highly illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri E.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. In their affidavit, the petitioners pleaded that possession of their agricultural lands, as described above, was forcibly taken by the respondents for the purpose of house sites to backward class people, that draft notification was published on 15-1-1987and draft declaration under Section 6 was published on 2-3-1987; that the petitioners were not paid advance compensation of 80% as per the provisions of the Act; that in an enquiry conducted at the instance of the petitioners, it was revealed that advance possession of the land was taken in the year 1987 and pattas were already distributed to 42 beneficiaries belonging to Rajaka community of Potladurti village; and that the beneficiaries occupied the said land. As the petitioners were not paid compensation, they got legal notice issued on 15-5-2005 and no response to the said notice was given nor compensation has been paid. The petitioners pleaded that the inaction of the respondents in paying compensation and issuing a fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in view of lapse of acquisition proceedings constitutes arbitrariness. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Yerraguntla Mandal, Cuddapah district, it is, inter alia, stated that in order to provide house sites to 43 Rajaka families, proceedings under the Act were initiated for acquisition of the land in question; that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was approved by the District Collector on 29-10-1986 and the same was published on 15-1-1987; that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was approved on 2-3-1987; and that as the funds were not made available for acquisition of the land, the District Collector felt that acquisition proceedings should be dropped and he has not, therefore, approved the P.V. proposals. It is further pleaded that as the Award was not passed within the stipulated time, the notification got lapsed. It is further alleged that the enquiry of the Mandal Revenue Officer revealed that the petitioners colluded with the beneficiaries of the proposed land acquisition and possession was delivered by the land owners themselves voluntarily without notice at the initial stage of acquisition proceedings without any notice to the Government; and that the beneficiaries occupied the said land and constructed dwelling houses. It is, therefore, alleged that the petitioners played fraud on the Government. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the allegations contained in the counter-affidavit. The question whether advance possession was taken by the respondents, in pursuance of initiation of land acquisition proceedings, from the petitioners or not has become a seriously disputed question of fact in the light of the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit that the petitioners in collusion with the beneficiaries under the proposed acquisition have themselves handed over possession. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to give a finding on this issue. Admittedly, the land acquisition proceedings got lapsed and the respondents have no intention of issuing a fresh notification. While the petitioners cannot compel the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, the respondents cannot deny compensation for temporary deprival of possession if it was legally taken by them from the petitioners. Hence, while declining to direct the respondents to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with liberty to the petitioners to approach competent civil Court for appropriate relief against the respondents for allegedly taking possession without paying compensation. The petitioners are permitted to raise all legally permissible pleas before the competent Court and similarly the respondents are at liberty to raise their defense. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ---------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 27-06-2008 MNR