IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25086 of 2000 Between: A. Dasaratha Rami Reddy … Petitioner AND District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Social Welfare This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25086 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to take immediate and appropriate steps to acquire the land admeasuring Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.238/2B1 corresponding to original paimaiash No.232/2 of Srikalahasti Village. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Perused the record. The dispute pertains to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No.238/2B1 of Srikalahasti, which stood in the name of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the basis of the possession certiﬁcates issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Srikalahasti in the year 1995 to the 24 families belonging to Yanadi (S.T.) community, the A.P. Urban Housing Authority sanctioned 18 houses and got them constructed, but no compensation has been paid to him. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.3, it is pleaded that the abovementioned families belonging to Scheduled Tribe were allowed by the father of the petitioner to be in possession of the property since the year 1970 and 25 years later, the Municipal Commissioner, Srikalahasti, in recognition of their long standing possession, granted possession certificates. It is further pleaded that the land has not been forcibly taken possession by the State Government from the petitioner and in order to provide shelter to the abovementioned families, houses were sanctioned and got them constructed in the year 1997. It is also averred that even if the possession of the tribals is unauthorized, the petitioner never questioned the same and therefore has acquiesced in contending that being rightful owner of the property, he is entitled to the payment of compensation. No reply aﬃdavit is ﬁled controverting the abovementioned averments in the counter-affidavit. From the abovementioned averments, it is clear that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property. But, according to the respondents, during the lifetime of his father Sri A. Balarami Reddy, he permitted 22 families of Scheduled Tribe to occupy the land and 25 years after their occupation, they were granted possession certiﬁcates by the Commissioner of Srikalahasti Municipality. On the strength of the possession certificates, houses were sanctioned and got constructed. Since the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents have acquired the land from him and deny speciﬁcally the allegation that even before the possession certiﬁcates were given and houses were constructed, the said Scheduled Tribe families were in long standing possession, it is not possible for this Court to give a direction to the respondents to acquire the land. The claim of the petitioner for acquisition and payment of compensation is required to be adjudicated by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction in which several issues such as adverse possession etc., would necessarily arise. Unless the petitioner is able to succeed in such a civil suit, he is not entitled to get a direction to the respondents to acquire the land, which evidently was out of his possession for a long time. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the observations made above. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.08.2008 ES