IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5489 of 2001 Between: Puranlal … Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Survey Settlement & Land Records/ Chief Settlement Officer Under Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P. Sriharsha Reddy for Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for the respondents: GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5489 of 2001 ORDER:- For the purpose of the present writ petition, the maze of facts need not be discussed herein. It will suﬃce to refer the detailed order dated 21.07.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.12547 and 34305 of 1997 instead of repeating the facts. In the said order, the learned Judge upheld the right of the petitioner for conveyance of the premises bearing No.9/369 admeasuring 939.52 square yards as initially directed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (for short, ‘the 1954 Act’). The said order of the learned Judge was the subject matter of WA.Nos.1734 and 1736 of 1999, which were disposed of by the Division Bench on 01.12.1999, wherein the Bench, while dismissing the said writ appeals, observed that the learned Single Judge only remanded the matter for fresh enquiry and demarcation of 430 square yards of land and that it is left open to the appellant (Smt. Nyalapalli Chandrakala) to question demarcation of the land if the extent of 430 square yards allotted to the petitioner falls within the extent of the land claimed by her. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the categorical ﬁnding given by the learned Single Judge that he is entitled to be given 939.52 square yards of land forming part of premises bearing No.9/369, no action has been taken by the respondents in this regard. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, it is inter alia stated that after the disposal of the abovementioned writ petitions, notices were issued to the petitioner, Smt. Sujatha, Sri Raja Reddy, Sri Ram Singh and occupants of house bearing No.9/368 to produce their respective documents, that in order to locate the area of H.No.9/369, if any, encroached by the owners of the adjacent house bearing Nos.9/370 and 9/368, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad, was requested to demarcate the lands and prepare a combined map, that the Assistant Director submitted three diﬀerent sketches, that H.No.9/368 is on the Western side of H.No.9/369 and that after superimposition of sketch No.3, H.No.9/369 is found comprised of 1110.29 square yards and the same is in possession of the petitioner as against the extent of 939.52 square yards, which the petitioner is entitled to be allotted. It is stated that the above survey and demarcation made by the Assistant Director revealed that the petitioner is in possession of excess area of 170.77 square yards, which included an area forming part of H.No.9/370 belonging to H.L. Mehatha. He also stated that as per the superimposed sketch no portion of H.No.9/369 allotted to the petitioner is encroached by any of the present occupants of H.No.9/368, which was allotted to Sri Bhojraj. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in making the abovementioned averments by the Joint Collector, he has taken into consideration the diﬀerent extents of land purchased by the petitioner and covered by various sale deeds produced by the petitioner before him. He also stated that while the conveyance deed was made by the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer only for an extent of 505.84 square yards, the petitioner is entitled to execution of conveyance deed for the balance extent of 433.68 square yards. With regard to the ﬁrst contention of the learned counsel, the question whether the extent of 1110.29 square yards found to be in possession of the petitioner is part of H.No.9/369 or the extent of the lands, which were purchased by the petitioner in diﬀerent survey numbers under various sale deeds are also included therein or not cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition, because such an adjudication requires recording of evidence both oral and documentary. Therefore, it is for the Civil Court, which is the proper and appropriate forum, to go into the issue if raised by the petitioner. As regards the second contention, though the petitioner has not ﬁled a copy of the conveyance deed executed by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 24.07.1981, in view of the assertion of the petitioner all through that the said conveyance deed covers 505.84 square yards of land and having regard to the categorical ﬁnding of the learned Single Judge in his order dated 21.07.1999 in WP.Nos.12547 and 34305 of 1997 that the petitioner is entitled to the conveyance of 939.52 square yards, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider whether the petitioner was conveyed only 505.84 square yards or more. If it is found that any extent less than 939.52 square yards was conveyed to the petitioner, they shall take immediate steps to convey the balance of the land to make 939.52 square yards through properly executed conveyance deed at the expenses of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall complete this exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court in the event he is not satisﬁed with the extent of the land he is in possession and seeks recovery of any part of the land up to the extent of 939.52 square yards forming part of premises bearing H.No.9/369. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.7027 of 2001 and 4959 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 22.08.2008 ES