HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 8101 OF 2002 Dated 21st January, 2010 Between: V. Ram Reddy and 11 othrs ………Petitioners And The District Collector & Chairman, Desert Development Programme, Ananthapur District, Ananthapur and three others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A. Hanumantha Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in sanctioning work under item No.1 of his proceedings Rc.No.152/DDP/F/DMF, dated -03-2002 pertaining to raising of a bund to kalekunta situated in petitioners’ lands in Survey No.812 of Kalipi Village, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur District without acquiring their lands and following due procedure established by law as illegal. The petitioners are residents of Seshapuram Village, hamlet of Kalipi, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur District. They are agriculturists owing lands in the said village. The petitioners averred that the lands owned by them in Survey Nos. 812, 581, 555 and 558 of Kalipi Village, Roddam Mandal, Ananthapur District are known as Kalekunta lands and they are dry lands which were originally owned by Sri Srinivasaraogari Padmanabha Rao and others with patta No.99, as per the resettlement register of Fasli 1336 corresponding to the year 1996. The petitioners claim to have purchased the said lands under registered sale deeds either from the original pattadars or from their successors. The petitioners have given details of the lands owned by them in Annexure ‘C’ appended to the affidavit. The petitioners further averred that on coming to know that respondent No. 4 proposed to raise a bund over the petitioners’ lands, they have submitted a petition on 29-01-2002 to respondent No.1 to refrain from proceeding with the said proposal. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the said representation, respondent No.1 accorded administrative sanction for the said work. The petitioners pleaded that the above mentioned lands are private patta lands described as dry lands and that no kunta had ever existed and that if a bund is located for the first time, agricultural lands to an extent of 70 to 80 acres belonging to them and several others will be submerged making it impossible for them to cultivate their own lands. By order dated 09-10-2002, this Court granted interim stay. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents though nearly eight years had passed after the filing of the writ petition. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue did not report any instructions. From the averments contained in the affidavit as noted above, it is the case of the petitioners that the lands across which bund is proposed to be raised in order to create a water body are private lands owned by the petitioners and various other villagers. According to the petitioners, if a bund is raised, the lands will get submerged and that would deprive them of cultivating the lands. It is unfortunate that the respondents have not filed the counter affidavit though the writ petition is pending for the last eight years. In the absence of denial of the averments contained in the affidavit, it is to be presumed that the lands over which the bund is sought to be raised are private lands. However, I would not like to render a conclusive finding on this aspect even though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. If the lands in dispute are private lands as contended by the petitioners, the respondents cannot proceed with the proposed work without either taking the consent of the land owners or acquiring the lands in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners specifically pleaded that they have submitted representation dated 29-01-2002 to respondent No.1 a copy of which is filed in the writ petition. In my considered opinion, respondent No.1 ought to have considered and disposed of the said representation before according administrative sanction for erection of the bund. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 1. Respondent No.1 shall consider the objections of the petitioners said to have been raised through their representation dated 29-01-2002. 2. To the query of the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners suggested that petitioner No.3 would represent the other petitioners before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 shall issue notice to petitioner No.3, which will be treated as a notice to all the petitioners and he shall hear petitioner No.3 in person or his counsel before disposing of the representation submitted by the petitioners. 3. Till completion of this process, the respondents shall not go ahead with the proposed work of raising of bund over the lands in dispute. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 21st January, 2010 ks