THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5278 of 2003 Date of Order:31.03.2011 Between: K.Yadaiah and others ..Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others ..Respondents This Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5278 of 2003 ORDER :- Petitioners, who are claiming to be in occupation of Acs.22-25 guntas of land in Chinna Golconda Village of Shamshabad Mandal, filed this writ petition complaining that the Government issued a public notice on 01.08.2001 stating that an area of Acs.13-25 guntas out of survey No.9 would be allotted in favour of the 4th respondent-A.P.Transco for construction of sub- station. On such publication, the petitioners made a representation on 27.08.2001 followed by another representation, dated 29.08.2001, to the 1st to 3rd respondents herein stating that they are in possession of the land for more than 50 years and cultivating the land by raising different crops and not to proceed with the notice published on 01.08.2001. In spite of the said representation, when the authorities tried to proceed with the matter, a suit in O.S.No.55 of 2002 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District was filed for permanent injunction and obtained a status quo order in I.A.No.96 of 2002. When the said suit was pending, at the request of the respondents for an amicable settlement that the remaining extent will be assigned in favour of the petitioners, they withdrew the suit and allowed the A.P.Transco to proceed with the construction. After withdrawing the suit, the respondents have not assigned the said lands in favour of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners seeks for issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting assignment of land admeasuring an extent of Acs.12-20 guntas in survey No.9 in favour of the petitioners, as illegal and for a direction to assign the said land in their favour. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal-3rd respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that on the 4th respondent requisitioning the land in survey No.9, admeasuring an extent of Acs.13-35 guntas for setting up electrical sub-station to cater the needs of the people of the area, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to submit alienation proposals to the said extent in favour of the 4th respondent in R.C.No.LC1/2286/2001, dated 20.12.2001. Accordingly, a notice, dated 01.08.2001, was issued calling for objections for the said proposal. On publishing the notice, one Kavali Yadaiah and others filed objection petition stating that they are in possession of the land and cultivating the same and requested for assignment of the land in their favour. The request of the petitioners was rejected and the alienation proposals were submitted in their favour and later possession was handed over to A.P.Transco on 29.12.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed O.S.No.55 of 2002 and obtained status quo orders. The petitioners also filed an affidavit before the Mandal Revenue Officer withdrawing their claim to an extent of Acs.8-00 out of an extent of Acs.13-35 guntas and claimed ex gratia which was also paid to the petitioners at Rs.50,000/- per acre for the land and another Rs.50,000/- for digging bore well by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have encroached into the land to an extent of Acs.13-35 guntas illegally and they have no title nor any DKT pattas were granted to them. The said land was classified as “Gairan Sarkari”, which exclusively belongs to the Government and denied that they are in possession of entire extent of Acs.22-25 guntas in survey No.9. The petitioners were in possession of only an extent of Acs.13-35 guntas. In view of the ban imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1409, dated 19.08.1978, it is not possible to assign the remaining extent of Acs.5-35 guntas of land in favour of the petitioners. Further, it is denied that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the suit schedule land which is in their possession and asserted that even on the date of filing the counter affidavit, the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the remaining extent of Acs.5-35 guntas of land. Further, the letter said to have been addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer vide letter No.B/1279/2002, dated 01.08.2002, is not traced in their office. In view of the ban imposed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1409, dated 19.08.1978, the said land cannot be assigned in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that since the petitioners are in possession of the property for the last 50 years, they are entitled for assignment of the lands in their favour. The Tahsildar addressed a letter on 01.08.2002 to the Revenue Divisional Officer recording their possession and proposed to assign the land in their favour and, therefore, they are entitled to the assignment. This Court does not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the simple reason that mere occupation of the Government land and cultivating the same by paying land revenue, will not acquire any right for assignment of the land when there is a specific ban imposed for assignment of such lands which are useful for the public purpose in future. Mere payment of the land revenue itself is not sufficient to claim assignment unless the nature of the land revenue collected is not known. It is fairly well settled that if the land revenue is collected as Sivai Jamabandi, the same will disclose that the occupant will not have any right in the property and that Sivai Jamabandi is a penalty imposed for unauthorised occupation and cultivation. In view of the same, the petitioners cannot claim any adverse possession for regularising their occupation. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent also, it was categorically asserted that the petitioners are still in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that they are not trying to dispossess or evict them. In view of the same, the only declaration this Court can make is without following the due process of law, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the said land and in future if the Government decides to assign the said land for any other person and if the petitioners are eligible for assignment, the Government can consider the case of the petitioners for assignment, as per the assignment policy invoked. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J March 31, 2011 Lmv