THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5393 of 1995 ORDER: The petitioner is the owner of land in survey No.753 of Hanumakonda. Original owner of the property was one Mr.Kandula Narasimha Rao. The name of the petitioner is entered in the revenue records also. He claims to have filed a declaration under Section 6 of the Urban (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) and only an extent of 346 square metres was found to be in excess of ceiling limits. His grievance is that the respondents have taken over the possession of the entire extent in the survey number, without either paying compensation, or acquiring it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal, the second respondent, filed counter-affidavit stating that the land in question was classified as Government land in the revenue records and that the same was utilized in developing a musical park. The claim of the petitioner is denied and it is, ultimately, observed that, in case the petitioner is found to be the owner, either compensation would be paid, or alternative site would be allotted. The Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Warangal, the third respondent, filed a counter-affidavit. He has pointed out the particulars furnished by the petitioner in his declaration filed under Section 6 of the Act. It is stated that only 0.20 guntas out of 346 square metres was found to be excess. Doubt is expressed to the title of the petitioner over the land. Heard Sri S.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation; learned Standing Counsel for Kakatiya Urban Development Authority and learned Government Pleader for Assignments. The pattadar for the land in survey No.753, even as of now, is Mr.Kandula Narasimha Rao. The manner in which the petitioner acquired the rights over the said land is not immediately before this Court. However, his name finds place as enjoyer in the pattadar passbook issued to the petitioner. Another circumstance is that the petitioner has shown an extent of 0.20 guntas only, in his declaration filed under 6 of the Act and through an order under Section 8(4) of the Act, the third respondent determined an extent of 346 square metres as being in excess of ceiling limits, after allowing the permissible limits. On account of lack of clarity in the entries in the revenue records, the respondent-Municipality is under the impression that the land in survey No.753 belongs to the Government. However, in the counter- affidavits filed by the respondents, it is clarified that in case, the title of the petitioner is established, they would compensate him. The land was put to a public use. Mere furnishing the particulars of a land in a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, cannot constitute the title. It would be a long ordeal for the petitioner to prove his title vis-à-vis the Government. There was a good gesture on the part of the second respondent in allotting two plots in a lay out to the petitioner. This development has taken place during the pendency of the writ petition. In his proceedings, dated 08.06.2000, the second respondent mentioned that two plots in Madireddykunta lay out admeasuring 300 square yards each, were allotted to the petitioner, in lieu of the site in question and sought for approval of the Government. By this time, the approval might have been granted. Even if it is not granted, immediate steps need to be taken therefor. The second respondent shall also handover immediate possession of those two plots to the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the second respondent shall handover two plots of 300 square yards each in Madireddykunta layout to the petitioner, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the same shall be treated as the compensation for the land of the petitioner in survey No.753. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ Dt.01.12.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ