IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19104 of 2008 Between: Vemula Appa Swamy, S/o. Ratnam, R/O. Penuballi Village and Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Penuballi Mandal, Khammam District. 2 The Revenue DivisionalOfficer, Khammam, Khammam District. 3 The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. byits Secretary, Social Welfre Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction , particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents herein in not paying compensation to the petitioner for his land of an extent of Ac. 1.00 situate in S.No. I of Penuballi Village and Mandal, Khammam District, under Land Acquisition Act which was taken possession by the 1st respondent herein in the year 1993 for the purpose of construction of houses for Harijans in the said land, as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, contrary to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and also without authority of law and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the respondetns herein to pay compensation to the petitioner for his above said land under Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner states that his ancestors were the enjoyers of Inam land, admeasuring Ac.1.00, in survey No.1 of Penuballi Village and Mandal, Khammam District. It is stated that in the year 1993, the possession of the land was taken by the Government for providing house sites to the weaker sections. The grievance of the petitioner is that though repeated representations have been made, the compensation for the land was not paid. On behalf of respondents, a counter-aﬃdavit is filed. It is admitted that the land in survey No.1 is Inam land. But, it is ﬂatly denied that the possession thereof, was taken for providing house sites. It is asserted that the houses were existing on the land, even prior to 1993. Heard Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The petitioner proceeded under the impression that his land was acquired by the Government for providing house sites. No proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were initiated, vis-à-vis the said land. Even where the Government resumes Inam, or assigned lands for any public purpose, ex-gratia is paid. When it is categorically stated that the possession of the land in survey No.1 was not taken by the Government, the question of requiring them to pay the compensation, does not arise. If the petitioner feels that the land owned by him is occupied by third parties, it is always open to him to work out his remedies. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies, in respect of his land. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.04.11.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ