THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Writ Petition No.10252 OF 2009 Dated: 05.11.2009 Between: V. Rambabu Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transpoprt Corporation Rep. By its Vice Chairman and Managing Director Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA W.V.M.P.No.2132 OF 2009 & Writ Petition No.10252 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 Originally the father of the Petitioner was the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.74 cents in Sy.No.274/2CIA and 274/2BIA at Rajahmundry. As an extent of Ac.6.69 cents including the land belonging to the father of the Petitioner was required for the purpose of providing bus depot for the Respondent corporation, a notification under section 4(1) of the A.P. Land Acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire the said land and thereafter the possession of the entire land has been taken after following due process under law i.e. following the provisions of the said Act. An award was passed on 13.09.1984 fixing the compensation for the entire extent of land that has been acquired. As the acquisition of the land was without notice to the Petitioner’s father, the father of the Petitioner approached this court and filed W.P.No.14048 of 1984. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, it appears, there was a compromise between the father of the Petitioner and the APSRTC and accordingly a deed of relinquishment was executed on 29.11.1985 and as per the said relinquishment deed an extent of Ac.1.00 of land was redelivered to the father of the Petitioner. The further understanding as per the said compromise was to withdraw all the cases and also to handover the balance Ac.0.74 of land. After the demise of his father, as the Petitioner required the said land, he addressed a letter to the Corporation stating that he continues to be in possession of the said land and he is ready to pay back the compensation amount together with interest. But, however, as nothing had transpired, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.2847 of 1992. Similarly he filed another Writ Petition No.4666 of 2002 for the very same relief and ultimately because of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Petitioner withdrew those two Writ Petitions. Thereafter, the Petitioner again gave a representation to the Respondent Corporation requesting to give back the said extent of Ac.0.74 cents for which the Corporation issued proceedings vide proceedings No. C1/356(66)/77 dated 03.06.2005 whereby the Petitioner was informed that he should pay an amount of Rs.2.15 crores, so that, the said extent of Ac.0.74 cents would be redelivered to him. As the said amount of Rs.2.15 Crores is exorbitant, the Petitioner gave a representation on 30.08.2006 to the Respondent authorities requesting to reconsider the said issue. However, as no orders have been passed, the Petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition. 2 A detailed counter affidavit has been filed wherein the Respondent Corporation has stated that advance possession of the entire extent of land including the land in question has been taken over by the Petitioner and an award also was passed and in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, Ac.1.00 was redelivered by taking back the amount of compensation plus interest that was paid to the Petitioner. But insofar as AC.0.74 cents of land is concerned, it is in the possession of the corporation and the Petitioner was never in possession of the said extent of land. As the said land is not used, and the same is dry land, further, as the petitioner is requesting for redelivery of the said land, the Respondent issued proceedings on 03.06.2005 directing the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2.15 crores. But, as the Petitioner failed to pay the said amount, the said land was not redelivered to the Petitioner. In view of the growth of the population and as the present bus depot is not sufficient to meet the requirements, the APSRTC wanted to make use of the said land of Ac.0.74 cents which is kept vacant and at that juncture, the Petitioner approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition and because of the interim orders passed by this court, the Respondent corporation is not in a position to proceed with the expansion work of the said bus depot. 3 Heard Mr. P.Venugopal learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyanarayana Murthy learned standing counsel for the Respondent Corporation. 4 The point for consideration is as to whether the Petitioner is in possession of the land in question or not. 5 According to Mr. P.Venugopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Petitioner is very much in possession of the land in question i.e. Ac.0.74 cents and according to him, if at all advance possession has been taken over and the Corporation is in possession of the said land, the Respondent Corporation should have recorded a panchanama establishing the fact that possession has already been taken and in the absence of any panchanama, it cannot be said that the Respondent Corporation has taken possession of the land in question. 6 In the light of the said argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court directed the learned Standing counsel for the Respondent Corporation to produce the entire record. The record is produced, but, unfortunately no such panchanama is in existence. But from that alone, it cannot be inferred that no possession has been taken over. From a perusal of the entire documents, it is clear that advance possession of the entire extent of Ac.6.69 cents including the land of the Petitioner i.e. AC.1.74 cents of land has been taken over. The award was passed for an extent of AC.6.69 cents. If the present extent of AC.0.74 cents is not taken possession of, the question of passing an award for the entire extent does not arise. In fact in the award it is specifically noted that advance possession of the entire land including the land in question has been taken possession of on 14.09.1978. At para 7 of the said award it is reiterated that the lands were handed over by the land owners to the APSRTC on 14.09.1978 even prior to the approval and publication of draft notification and draft declaration. As there was a compromise between the parties i.e. father of the Petitioner and the Corporation a relinquishment deed has been executed, pursuant to which a delivery note was prepared delivering an extent of AC.1.00 of land. From that it is clear that the Petitioner is not in possession of the entire extent of AC.1.74 cents of land. If the Petitioner is in possession of Ac.1.00 of land or AC.0.74 cent of land, the question of preparing a delivery note does not arise. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Respondent Corporation at Musheerabad, Hyderabad had issued proceedings dated 18.09.1997 wherein it was stated as follows: “The following works are proposed to be taken up within the 74 cents of land on priority basis”. If it is a fact that the Petitioner is in possession of the said extent of AC.0-74 cents and that APSRTC is not in possession of the same, the question of RTC taking up certain construction works on priority basis in the land in question also does not arise. Even from the relinquishment deed prepared by the Petitioner’s father, it can be inferred that the father of the Petitioner was not in possession of the entire extent of AC.1.74 cents. As stated supra, if it is a fact that the Petitioner is in possession of the said land, question of redelivery of the very same land does not arise. Further, in the latest representation dated 30.08.2006 under which the Petitioner requested the authorities to reconsider the issue with regard to the payment of the amount of Rs.2.15 crores, he has nowhere mentioned that he continues to be in possession of the AC.0.74 cents of land. 7 From all the above, it is clear that the Petitioner is not in possession of an extent of Ac.0.74 cents of land. Accordingly, I see no merits in this Writ Petition and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed. However, as the Petitioner had approached the first Respondent and gave a representation on 30.08.2006 and again on 15.05.2009 to reconsider the issue, the authorities are hereby directed to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders as to whether the said amount of Rs.2.15 crores as fixed by them vide proceedings dated 03.06.2005 can be reconsidered or not. 8 With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, the interim orders passed by this court in W.P.M.P.No.13211 of 2009 dated 20.05.2009 shall stand vacated. ------------- 05.11.2009 C.C.in three days B/o kvsn