IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23674 of 2003 Between: Guda Koteswara Rao. … Petitioner And The District Collector, West Godavari Dsitrict, Eluru and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: None Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. This Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying compensation in respect of Ac.0.13 cents out of 24.1/2 cents in R.S.No.940/3 of Unguturu village, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. In his affidavit the petitioner claimed that his mother,Guda Gangamma, occupied an extent Ac.0.24.1/2 cents of dry land in the above mentioned survey number and Ac.0.11.1/2 cents of land in R.S.No.1158/2 adjacent to National High Way No.5 about more than fifty years; that his mother executed a registered settlement deed in his favour on 6-12-1995; that respondent No.2 issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) to acquire an extent of Ac.0.11.1/2 cents in R.S.No.1158/2 and Ac.0.13 cents in R.S.No.940/3; and that the petitioner’s name is shown in the notification and declaration issued under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Act. He further averred that he was paid compensation in respect of Ac.0.11.1/2 cents in R.S.No.1158/2 but for Ac.0.13 cents of land in Survey No.940/3 no compensation has been paid to him. He further stated that he got a registered notice issued on 22-9-2003, but he did not receive any response from the respondents. In the counter-affidavit respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner was in possession of land in R.S.No.1158/2B and not 1158/2 as claimed by him; and that R.S.No.940/3 was further sub-divided 940/4 to 940/9, which is in possession of as many as six persons, whose names and extents in their occupation were shown in a table given in para-3. The answering respondent admitted that the petitioner’s mother executed a registered settlement deed on 6-12-1995 in favour of the petitioner; that as per the recitals the property admeasuring 36 cents in R.S.No.1158/3 and R.S.No.951/8 were conveyed to the petitioner but not the land in R.S.No.940/3 as claimed by him; and that the petitioner claimed compensation in respect of R.S.No.1158/2B admeasuring 108 Sq.yards. He also denied that the name of the petitioner was shown as owner-cum-possessor in respect of the land in R.S.No.940/3 in the notification and declaration issued under Sections 4(1) and 6 the Act. He stated that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence before the officer concerned showing his right over the said property, but he has produced a xerox copy of document bearing No.4811/95, 6-12-1995, which is a tampered one. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. The facts narrated hereinabove clearly reveal that there is a serious dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement for compensation in respect of Ac.0.13 cents of land in R.S.No.940/3. While it is the case of respondents that six different persons were in occupation of the total extent of 893 Sq. yards in R.S.No.940/3, which was subdivided into R.S.Nos.940/4 to 940/9, the petitioner claims his right under a purported settlement deed executed by his mother. The respondents denied the genuineness of the Photostat copy of the purported settlement deed sent by the petitioner terming it as a fabricated one. In the face of these disputed facts, it is not possible for this Court to decide the said dispute in the Writ Petition. The only appropriate remedy available for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court by way of a civil suit to get his title declared over the property in question and in the event of his success in such a suit, he shall then be free to claim compensation from the respondents. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ---------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date:12-08-2008 MNR