IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 9548 of 2001 Between: 1 Adusumilli Lalitha W/o Late Venkateswara Rao R/o Nehru Nagar, Khammam. 2 Nunna Satyanarayana S/o Laxmi Narsaiah Khanapuram Village, Khammam Urban, Khammam. 3 Veeragandham Padmavathi W/o Sarath Babu R/o Khanapuram Village, Khammam Urban, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Tourism Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Khammam, Khammam Distict. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction declaring the illegal action of respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession of petitioners over their lands, i.e., Ac.0-07 in Sy.No.94, Ac.0-08 is Sy.No.120 and Ac.0-05 in Sy.No.125 situated at Khanapuram Village, Khammam Urban, Khammam District and trying to encroach upon the said lands of petitioner for the purpose of developing it as alleged Tourist spot and purpose without following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, and against the principles of natural justice, unjust and as unsustainable and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere or encroach upon the above said lands belonging to the petitioners or dispossess the petitioners from their lands, without following due proces of law, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VISWANATHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.9548 of 2001 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession of the land of an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in S.No.94, Ac.0.08 cents in S.No.120 and Ac.0.05 cents in S.No.125 situated at Khanapuram village, Khammam Urban, Khammam, and trying to encroach upon the said lands for the purpose of developing it as Tourist spot, without following the due process of law as arbitrary and illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere or encroach upon the above said lands belonging to the petitioners or dispossess the petitioners from their lands, without following due process of law. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they have purchased different extents of land in Survey No.94, 120 and 125 situated at Khanapuram village, Khammam Urban village, Khammam District, under registered sale deeds from their respective vendors. They have been in continuous possession and enjoyment by cultivating the above said land. While so, the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam has illegally and arbitrarily started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over their lands, for which the petitioners have raised objection. On that, the officials of the third respondent have stated that on the instructions of the second respondent ie., the District Collector, Khammam, they are making arrangements to develop the land belonging to the petitioners, for the purpose of giving it as a Tourist spot along with Lakkavaram tank. It is their case that if at all the respondents want to acquire the lands of the petitioners, they have to initiate land acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of L.A.Act. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is that without following the due process of law, the respondents cannot encroach upon the land of the petitioners. 3. The second respondent filed his counter-affidavit, wherein it is stated that insofar as land of the first petitioner is concerned, as per the revenue records, S.No.94 is ‘Bancharai-Sarkari’ situated in Khanapuram Haveli of Khammam Urban Mandal, and insofar as the land claimed by the second and third petitioners is concerned ie., S.No.120 and 125, is ryotwari patta land. During the year 1974-75 an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas of land in S.No.94 was assigned to Sri Thota Hanumanthu, S/o Laxmaiah by the then Tahsildar, Khammam vide Proceedings No.C5/6928/74 dated 30.12.1974. It was noticed by the respondent No.3 the Mandal Revenue Officer, that the assignee has not brought the land under cultivation. No crops were raised at any point of time and the land was kept vacant till date. The assigned land was purchased by the petitioner No.1 and the same was converted into non-agricultural purpose viz., house plots. Therefore, the third respondent has initiated action under Section (3) of APAL(POT) Act, 1977 and form-I notice was issued on 9.3.2001 to the first petitioner directing him to show cause within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why he should not be summarily evicted from the said land. But the petitioner No.1 refused to take notice. As such, the notice was affixed on the residential door of the petitioner No.1 and also at S.No.94. Inspite of affixing of the notice, the petitioner No.1 has failed to submit his explanation. Therefore, the third respondent passed the orders for resumption of the land vide proceedings No.B/6772/2000 dated 27.3.2001. Pursuant to the orders passed by the third respondent, the Mandal Revenue Inspector-I, Khammam Urban, has taken possession of the land from the petitioner No.1 under the cover of panchanama dated 28.3.2001. In fact, the registered sale deed vide document No.4216/96 and 4217/96 in favour of petitioner No.1 is null and void. Insofar as the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, it is stated that their lands are patta lands and the respondent No.3 has never interfered with their possession. It is stated that the land in an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in S.No.94, has already been resumed back by following the due process of law, under the provisions of APAL (POT) Act, 1977 under the cover of panchanama dated 23.8.2001. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 is not having any locus standi on the land in S.No.94 in respect of 0.07 guntas, which is a Government land. It is further stated that the Khammam town is a District Headquarters with a population of nearly 2 lakhs. It is a vibrant commercial growth center with rich hinterland. It is ideally located between Hyderabad and Vijayawada on trunk railway line and on State Highway connecting Hyderabad to Northern Coastal Andhra Pradesh. The District has various pilgrim and tourist places for which the traffic flows through Khammam district. Therefore, Khammam town is an ideal location having huge tourist potential. The Khammam district has great potential of Tourism projects for private development. Initially, the focus is on Lakkaram Recreation Zone in Khammam town. This zone consists of Lakkaram lake. A comprehensive development plan for Lakkaram lake has been floated to create Lakkaram Recreation Zone. This zone is again divided into different areas of leisure, recreation and entertainment activities, which will be given on long term lease for development and management. The Government have proposed to award projects and areas to private developers to successfully implement the project. In order to develop the Lakkaram Recreation Zone at Khammam, the Tourism Department of Andhra Pradesh has also released an amount of Rs.42.00 lakhs to award development and management of the individual areas/project to private developers. Open tenders were floated inviting bids for improvement of the Lakkaram Recreation Zone by the private participants and they were completed. The Government have approved the projects viz., shopping mail, Yoga center, Club, entry park, theme park, parking, water sports, resorts and golf. The District Tourism Officer/District Public Relation Officer, Khammam has registered the areas earmarked to the promoters for development of Lakkaram Recreation Zone and the work is in progress. Promoters have undertaken the works on the lands handed over to them, but not on the lands of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 4. There is no dispute with regard to the land claimed by the petitioners 2 and 3 as it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the lands held by them are their patta lands and the respondent officials are not interfering with their land. The dispute is only with regard to the land belonging to the petitioner No.1, whose land according to the respondents is a Government land and the said land was initially assigned in favour of one Thota Hanumanth from whom admittedly the first petitioner claimed to have purchased the same. Therefore, it is an assigned land. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that since the said T.Hanumanth did not bring the land into cultivation and the alleged sale transaction through which the first petitioner purchased the said land from Thota Hanumanthu is hit by the provisions under APAL (POA) ACT, 1977 and since the first petitioner was found to be the purchaser and possessor of the land claimed by Government, the third respondent initiated the proceedings under 3(1) of APAL (POA) ACT and a notice was issued in form No.1 on 9.3.2001 directing him to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why he could not be summarily evicted from the land. But the 1st petitioner refused the said notice. Therefore, it was affixed on the door of the residence of the first petitioner on 10.3.2001. Inspite of the same, the first petitioner has failed to submit the explanation. Therefore, the third respondent passed an order of resumption vide proceedings No.B/6772/2000 dated 23.2.2001 and took possession of the land under a cover of panchnama on 28.8.2001. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the land of Ac.1.20 guntas in S.No.94, which includes the land claimed by the 1st petitioner, was resumed back to the Government after following the due process of law. As the Government has proposed to develop a tourism project under the name and style of Lakkaram Recreation Zone, tenders were called for and the work was in progress. 5. Since the land claimed by the 1st petitioner is found to be an assigned land and he is found to be a purchaser, contrary to the provisions of Section 3(1) of the APAL (POA) Act, 1977, the said transaction has been set aside by following the due process of law and the possession of the land in question has been taken over by the respondents and they put the same in use for development of the tourism project. 6. Under the above circumstances, insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the writ petition is dismissed. Insofar as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, since it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondents have never interfered with their land and the respondent/officials cannot interfere or acquire the land of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, without following the due process of law, no relief need be granted in their favour. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 18th November, 2008. PNV THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.9548 of 2001 18th November, 2008