The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.35 of 2010 Date: 20-12-2011 Between: D.Yaganti Reddy and another ..... Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.TCD.Sekhar for Mr.P.Venugopal Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition The 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. The petitioners claim title over an extent of Ac.42-78 cents in Survey No.1 of Banumukkala Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool District. It is the case of the petitioners that their father purchased an extent of Ac.61.69 cents under registered sale deeds from a private person. It is their pleaded case that, out of the said extent, their father has alienated Ac.7-50 cents through registered sale deed leaving the balance extent of Ac.42-78 cents to them; that, out of the said extent, an extent of Ac.5-00 fell to the share of petitioner No.1 and Ac.37-78 cents fell to the share of petitioner No.2. The above extent of land was utilized by the respondents for a canal under Galeru Nagari Sujala Sravanthi scheme project. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in acquiring the said land and paying compensation to them. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that, even though the petitioner’s father has purchased the subject land under document No.67/1951, the classification of the said land remained as ‘Government land’ in the Revenue records. The respondents have further averred that, as the petitioners are in possession of the land in question as per Adangal, they were issued pattadar pass books and that mere issuance of pattadar passbooks will not create title. It is further averred that no title vests in the petitioners because their father has purchased the subject land from a person, who was in unauthorized possession of the Government land. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that, as the land claimed by the petitioners is treated as belonging to the Government and the petitioners are only encroachers of Government land, ex gratia will be paid to them in pursuance of the Government Orders providing for such payment. At the hearing, Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that letter, dated 01-07-2009, of respondent No.4 addressed to respondent No.3 would show that they have not assigned lands in Banumukkala Village; that there are very old registered transactions and; that the adangal has recorded the persons, who are in enjoyment of the lands. On the basis of this letter, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioners are not in possession of the DKT lands and that they should be recognized as the owners of the subject lands in the face of the registered document pertaining to the year 1951. In my opinion, there is a serious dispute regarding the classification of the subject land. Mere sale deed would not confer title on the vendee. The petitioners failed to trace the title of the vendor of their father. In the absence of proof of title, the respondents have treated the subject land as belonging to the Government and in unauthorized possession of the vendor of the petitioner’s father prior to sale and the family of the petitioners after sale. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide the disputed question over title. If the petitioners are agreeable for receiving ex gratia as encroachers/enjoyers of the subject land, they are entitled to approach the respondents, in which case, respondent No.3 shall consider their claim for payment of ex gratia. Conversely, if the petitioners want to assert their title and claim compensation as owners of the subject land, they shall be free to file a suit for declaration of their title before the competent civil Court. If the petitioners succeed in such a suit, they shall be entitled to payment of compensation as owners of the said land. Subject to the above-observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order, dated 06-01-2010, is vacated and WVMP.No.472 of 2011 in/& WPMP.No.34 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 20th December, 2011 LUR