THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28073 OF 2008 31st March, 2011. Between: CHADALAVADA KUMAR .. PETITIONER AND GOVT. OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.28073 OF 2008 O R D E R : (PER THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU) 1. Respondent 6, owner of Ac.0.04 ½ in S.No.319/6 at Naidupet Gram Panchayat had to part with the above said immovable property to enable the government to provide a passage and entry to the inhabitants of the village to a 30 bed Government Hospital at Naidupet against a promise of exchange of an alternative piece of land in S.No.296/1 and the promise so made was translated into action by the Government vide reference No.Spl.B1.1948/96, dated 24.9.1996 issued by the Commissioner, Land Revenue. The land given to the respondent 6 being half a cent more than what he had parted with, therefore, the Government demanded the differential cost amounting to Rs.49,005/-, which was responded to by him through payment on 29.3.1997. To place the facts on record it may not be impertinent to mention that prior to implementation of the exchange there was a litigation through a writ petition, facts whereof need not detain us, because it culminated in a direction to the government to settle the controversy at its own level which was settled by the Government by parting with the possession of the land in favour of the respondent 6. 2. Matter did not end here but further litigation had commenced on the part of the Gram Panchayat questioning the exchange before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Gudur seeking a declaration of title on the land given in exchange and recovery of possession thereof impleading both the State and the respondent 6 as defendants but of no avail because of dismissal of the suit on 30.9.2004, inter alia, with a finding that the Gram Panchayat had never objected to the exchange of the land, the Gram Panchayat had no right or title over the property which was given in exchange to the respondent 6 and that the land in question was the property of the State in exercise of its sovereign right. The judgment was not questioned before any forum and has attained finality. All these facts have been suppressed by the petitioner. Significantly the facts so detailed by the respondent in his counter affidavit are not disputed by the petitioner and has not denied knowledge of these facts. As a matter of fact, his knowledge is evident from the fact that he happened to be a Member of the Gram Panchayat from 2001 to 2005 and the judgment of the civil court has come into being in the year 2004 when he was positioned as a Ward Member therefore, he has rightly not pleaded lack of knowledge in respect of facts averred by the 6th respondent in his counter affidavit. 3. There is also no denying by the petitioner that the exchange of land has enabled the people to have entry and access to the premises of the hospital. Apparently, exchange is in the public interest and there is substance in the averment urged by respondent 6 in his counter affidavit, depicting institution of writ petition for promotion of the petitioner’s own interest emanating from grouse and grudge registered against respondent 6 because of 6th respondent’s refusal to support the petitioner in election and we have all the reason to believe it because the averment has not been rebutted by the petitioner. In the aforementioned backdrop, we are convinced that this writ petition is actuated with malafides. 4. The petitioner has obtained an interim direction on 24.12.2008 by suppression and misrepresentation of facts, preventing respondent 6 from enjoying the proprietary and possessory rights conferred upon him by valid exchange. Viewed thus, this writ petition filed in the guise of Public Interest Litigation is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner in the Registry within two weeks to be disbursed to the respondent 6 on his identification by his counsel. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requested for reduction of the quantum of costs from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. We concede to the request. Modification as prayed for. Interim direction dated 24.12.2008 shall stand vacated. (VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J) (NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ) 31ST March, 2011. Nagesh babu THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO.28073 OF 2008 O R D E R : (PER THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU) 31ST March , 2011.