IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10151 of 2001 Between: E.Lakshma Reddy S/o.E.Vemkata Reddy R/o.Bhoolakshmi Camp Villagee of Bodhan Revenue Mandal Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P Rep.by its Chairman, Implementation Secretariat Public Enterprises Dept 'B' Blocks,III Floor Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad. 2 Nizam Sugars Ltd., Rep.by itsw General Manager Shakar Bhavan Fathemaidan Road Hyderabad. 3 District Collector Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, direction or order preferably in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the 2nd Respondent in not putting the petitioner into effective possession of the land bearing Survey No.324 situate in Satapur village accounts, Renjal Mandalam,Nizamabad District in an extent of Ac.6 and 12 guntas in pursuance of the confirmation of sale made by the 2nd Respondent dated 19-11-1998 and also subsequent letter addressed by the 2nd Respondent to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Renjal dated 3-9-1999 for transfer of the title in favour of the petitioner; and further the inaction on the part of the Respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 24-4-2001 relating to the alternate land being allotted to the petitioner as per the auction held on 25-4- 2001 as being violative of Arts.14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct refund of the sale amount with damages to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.SREENIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri N.VASUDEVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.10151 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not putting the petitioner into effective possession of the land admeasuring Ac.6-12 gts., in Sy.No.324 situated at Satapur Village, Renjal Mandal, Nizamabad District, pursuant to the confirmation of the auction, dated 19-11-1998, as illegal and arbitrary and also in not considering the representation of the petitioner for allotment of alternative land as per the auction held on 25-04-2001. It is the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued a public notification for sale of the land admeasuring Ac.6-12 gts. in Sy.No.324 situated at Satapur Village, Renjal Mandal, Nizamabad District, and the petitioner participated in the said auction and offered highest bid amount at the rate of Rs.23,000/- per acre, but the possession was not given to him. The 3rd respondent filed a counter stating that the land admeasuring Ac.6-12 gts. in Sy.No.324 situated at Satapur Village, Ranjal Mandal, Nizamabad District, is classified as Khariz Katha (Government land) and the then Tahsildar, vide proceedings No.A5/6880/77, dated 21-07-1977, assigned the said land to Scheduled castes people and they were put in possession of the same. The 2nd respondent has no right or title over the said land. Therefore, the question of putting the said land for public auction or sale in favour of the petitioner does not arise and, therefore, the petitioner cannot get any right or title over the said land. In view of the counter of the 3rd respondent, I am of the opinion that unless the 2nd respondent resolves the dispute as to whether the said land is a Government land or it is legally alienated in favour of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner will not get any right over the said land. If the right and title of the 2nd respondent itself is not clear, the petitioner cannot get better title. However, it is open for the petitioner to resolve the dispute between him and the 2nd respondent or to get refund of the amount paid by him or to get undisputed alternative land belonging to the 2nd respondent, but, however, the relief claimed in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 27-02-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JPK}