IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21504 of 2000 Between: Tuljaram Singh … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : None Counsel for respondents 1& 3to5: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri O. Manohar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21504 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash notiﬁcation dated 17.12.1999 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’) and published on 08.02.2000 in the Gazette. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The case of the petitioner is that his father late Shambu Singh was a protected tenant of Ac.0.34 guntas of agricultural land forming part of Sy.No.211 of Malakpet Revenue Village, Charminar Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District, that after town survey the said land was renumbered as T.S.No.1, Block-A, Ward No.178, that his father applied for a certiﬁcate under Section 38 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and the then Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad (West) issued pattadar certiﬁcate under Section 38 (E) of the said Act on 14.09.1965. The petitioner further stated that respondent No.1 issued notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act by notifying the extent of Ac.0.16 guntas of land in Sy.No.211 corresponding to T.S.No.1, Block-A, Ward No.178 showing the name of the petitioner’s father as the owner and respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner in the name of his father calling for objections to the said acquisition and that he submitted his objections on 17.04.2000. The grievance of the petitioner is that without aﬀording him an opportunity of personal hearing, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Amberpet Mandal, under the supervision of the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, entered into his land on 01.06.2000 and demolished three house units bearing Nos.16-6-699/3, 4 and 5 and destroyed the entire vegetable crops apart from felling 525 Coconut, 25 Mango, 25 Guava, 8 Sapota, 3 Usoor Kai trees and several Kaliyapak and Banana trees. The petitioner therefore sought for quashing of the said proceedings. Respondent No.4 ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit in which inter alia he denied the claim of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner and pattadar of the property admeasuring Ac.2.24 guntas in Sy.No.211 of Chaderghat, Malakpet. He stated that the land, which is claimed by the petitioner, falls in T.S.No.10, Block A, Ward No.203 of Talabchanchalam Village, that as per Town Survey Land Register, the property belongs to the Government, that town survey was conducted in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in the years 1964-1971 under the provision of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and in that survey, the said land was classiﬁed as Government land and that ﬁnal notiﬁcation under Section 13 of the said Act was published in A.P. Gazette No.60 dated 25.09.1976. Respondent No.4 termed the claim of the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises bearing Nos.16-6- 699/3, 4 and 5 of Chaderghat, Malakpet as false. He further stated that in order to implement Nandanavanam project to facilitate free ﬂow of the stagnated water in the river Moosi and to provide green belt on the river base, the Government decided to lay a road on the Southern side of the Moosi river and in order to remove the encroachments, respondent No.2 issued notice under Section 7 to the petitioner and passed order under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. That as he refused to receive the said documents, they were aﬃxed on the premises where the petitioner was living and the illegal structures were removed thereafter. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Special Deputy Collector-cum-Land Acquisition Oﬃcer, it is stated that an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas of petitioner’s land situated at T.S.No.1, Block-A, Ward No.178 of Malakpet was notified under the impugned notification, but he denied taking possession of the said land. It is also averred that notices dated 18.03.2000 under Section 5A of the 1894 Act were served on all the concerned persons including the petitioner, that in response to the said notice, the petitioner ﬁled his objections on 17.04.2000 and that on the date of enquiry neither the petitioner nor was his counsel present. He stated that the petitioner occupied the Government land to the extent of 5104 square metres in T.S.No.10, Block-A, Ward No.203 of Talabchenchalam Village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad District, which is diﬀerent from the land notiﬁed under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act. No reply aﬃdavits have been ﬁled controverting the averments contained in the two counter aﬃdavits filed by respondent Nos.2 and 4. From the averments of the counter aﬃdavits as noted above, it is evident that the stand of the respondents that while the petitioner alleged that the property to an extent of Ac.0.16 guntas situated in T.S.No.1, Block-A, Ward No.178 of Malakpet was taken over by them after destroying the structures and trees situated therein, as a fact, they have not taken possession of the said property, but they have recovered possession from the petitioner of another property in T.S.No.10, Block-A, Ward No.203 of Talabchenchalam Village, Charminar Mandal, following the order passed under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. In the face of these seriously disputed facts, it is not possible for this Court to decide whether the petitioner was evicted from the land notiﬁed for acquisition or from a diﬀerent land. Since it is admitted that Ac.0.16 guntas of land in TS.No.1, Block- A, Ward No.178 of Malakpet village, which is notiﬁed for acquisition under the impugned notiﬁcation, belong to the petitioner, to that extent the respondents are bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the 1894 Act. If the said land is already acquired, the petitioner is entitled to compensation under the provisions of the 1894 Act. As regards the extent of 5104 square metres, which was taken possession from the petitioner, no relief can be granted to the petitioner since it is not his case that the said property is owned by him. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.27334 of 2000, 6507, 6508 and 6509 of 2001 and 462 of 2005 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.07.2008 ES