THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.1 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed by Sri Syed Shareef Ahmed and M. Mehdi Hussain on behalf of the petitioners. Unfortunately one of the advocates Sri Shareef Ahmed expired after filing of the Writ Petition and the other advocate on record has reported that he has no instructions. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the material available before this Court. 2 In this Writ Petition petitioners seek a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps for laying the road through the land of the petitioners covered by Sy.No.9/2 situated at Jalpalli village, Saroornagar Mandal, R. R. District as illegal and arbitrary. 3 It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that originally D.Babaiah and Y. Ramaiah were the owners and possessors of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.17-07 guntas covered by Sy.No.9 of Jalpalli village in Ranga Reddy District and one Syed Mohiuddin Ali purchased the land from its earlier owners. It is stated that so far as the petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, they have purchased an extent of Ac.4-02 ½ each from the said Syed Mohiuddin Ali under two separate registered sale deeds dated 24.10.2003 vide document Nos. 13078 and 13079 and they were given pattadar pass books and title deeds after their names being mutated in the revenue records concerned. 4 It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they are the owners and possessors of the aforesaid piece of land, the respondents are taking steps to lay a road through the land of the petitioners without taking recourse to the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further stated that the action of the respondents is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India. 5 Respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit and the third respondent has filed a separate counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, while denying the various averments made by the petitioner, it is stated that the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 27– 29 ¾ guntas situated in Jalpally village of Saroornagar Mandal covered by various survey numbers including the Sy.No.9 was requisitioned by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for constructing a road from Mailardevpallyi to Srisailam Road via Jalpally on 25.01.2007. It is stated that in view of the said requisition, the District Collector has forwarded the proposals to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, International Airport, Shamshabad for initiating the land acquisition proceedings. It is further stated in the counter that the Writ Petition pertains to Sy.No.9/2 of Jalpally village, which is classified as “Sarkari Kharij Khatha”. According to the revenue records, the same was assigned to Syed Mounuddin Ali in the year 1955-58 (as per Seshala). It is further stated that the petitioners have purchased assigned lands. But, such lands are not alienable in view of the provisions under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. It is stated that as the alienation is contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the respondents are taking steps to resume the land. 6 As per the averments made in counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the land claimed by the petitioners is an assigned land. However, even as per the averments in the counter affidavit, no proceedings have yet been taken up for resumption of the land in question. In that view of the matter, no road can be laid through the land belonging to the petitioners even before passing an order of resumption. 7 For the aforesaid reasons, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondents not to take any steps for construction of the road through the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.9/2 of Jalpally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. However, it is made clear that if the land purchased by the petitioners is in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, this order will not preclude the respondents to take further steps under law. It is further made clear that if the land in question is required for any public purpose, this order will not also preclude the respondents to notify the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the said purpose. 8 Subject to the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 11.11.2011 Kvsn