THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1380 of 2008 Dated:26.08.2010 Between: Smt.Chitra Narayanamma. ….Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Ramgiri Mandal, Ramagiri, Ananthapur District, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1380 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was statedly assigned land admeasuring Acs.5.00 in S.No.463/1 of Ganthimarri Village of Ramagiri Mandal in Anantapur District in 2002. Sometime ago, an extent of Ac.1.50 cents was acquired for widening of NH-7, and the petitioner was left with cultivable land in an extent of only Acs.2.50, as the rest of the land is not cultivable. The petitioner alleges that the first respondent is bent upon depriving the petitioner of her right to cultivate the land having come under the influence of politicians. Therefore, the first respondent is allegedly forcing the petitioner to surrender the land voluntarily to the Government. She, therefore, is before this Court seeking appropriate declaration and direction. The first respondent filed counter affidavit. Alleging that though the land was assigned to the petitioner in 2002, she never cultivated the land, that she kept the land vacant, and that she filed the instant writ petition suppressing the facts. The factum of assignment and subsequent acquisition for NH-7 are admitted. It is further stated that as the land was required for public purpose, after issuing notice, the land was resumed for construction of houses under Integrated Novel Development in Rural Areas and Model Municipal Areas (INDIRAMMA) housing scheme. Before taking possession of the land for the purpose of INDIRAMMA housing scheme the following procedure was followed. (a) Received the report from the Revenue Inspector on 16.09.2007 in which there is recommendation for resumption of the land in S.No.463-1 measuring 4.20 Acres of Ganthimarri Village. (b) Notices were issued duly mentioning the violations in Rc.No.(B) 218/2007 dated:24.09.2007 to the Writ Petitioner (the assignee). (c) Notices were returned to this Office after affixture on the door of the petitioners residence since she refused to receive the notices in which Revenue Inspector has obtained a certificate to that effect on 27.09.2007. (d) Tahsildar’s further enquiry report after refusal of the notices by the assignee and the economic and social status of the assignee dated:04.10.2007. (e) Resumption orders passed by the Tahsildar eliciting the violations and social status of the assignee on 15.10.2007. (f) Certificate to the effect that the assignee has refused to receive the resumption proceedings in Rc. (B)218/07 dated:15.10.2007. The land was taken possession on 20.10.2007 by the Revenue Inspector under a cover of Panchanama as she was reluctant to handover the land. Counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) made their submissions. The photo copies of notices issued to the petitioner and resumption proceedings as well as the panchanama are placed before this Court. After perusing the notice of resumption as well as the order passed thereon, it is very clear that the assignment made in favour of the petitioner in 2002 was not cancelled on any allegation, much less, on an allegation that the land was not cultivated. The land was resumed for the purpose of providing house sites to weaker sections, and as admitted in the counter affidavit, under INDIRAMMA scheme. Therefore, even if there is a valid notice to the petitioner, she is entitled to receive the compensation in accordance with the ratio of the larger Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Domalaguda, Hyderabad v Mekala Pandu[1]. Indeed, admittedly, when the land was acquired for NH-7 she was paid a compensation of Rs.41,200/-. If that be so, she cannot be denied compensation. Apart from these, when the land is resumed, the petitioner has also right to file appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the case of the respondents that disobeying the orders of status quo, the petitioner planted ‘Margosa’. This, however, does not alter the situation if the land is already taken possession by the Revenue Inspector under cover of panchanama as evidenced by the panchanama placed before this Court. Therefore, the contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is still in possession cannot be accepted. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. The writ petitioner is given one month’s time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to file appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the order of resumption. Liberty is also reserved to her to claim compensation before the District Collector. As and when the appeal is filed or application is made for compensation, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.08.2010 Note: Issue C.C in one week. B/o. vs [1] 2004 (2) ALD 451 (LB)