IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.16598 of 2009 BETWEEN Madem Janakamma, D/o.Kannaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ: Headmistress, Ramachandrunipet, Venkatayapalem, Kunavaram (M), Khammam District …Petitioner AND The Land Acquisition Officer cum Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Indira Sagar Project, Palvancha Unit-II, Palvancha, Khammam District And others. …Respondents The court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETIITON No.16598 of 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 12.08.2009 and granted Status Quo for a limited period, which is being extended from time to time. Respondents 3 and 4 filed W.V.M.P.No.2996 of 2009 to vacate the interim order and counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Heard Sri Nagesh Bheemapaka, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.Manikyala Rao, learned counsel representing respondents 3 and 4. This Writ Petition is filed for an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the land acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, vide Notification No.132/2008 dated 18.10.2008 published in Vaartha daily on 23.10.2008 to acquire the land of the petitioner’s grand father by wrongly showing the names of respondents as enjoyers of the land to an extent of Acs.3.50 in Old Survey No.4/20 co-related 23/1B and Survey No.4/5 co-related 15/2 an extent of Acs.3.20 cents situated in Venkatayapalem Village, Kunavaram Mandal of Khammam District as illegal and void and opposed to Articles 14,19,21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to refer the matter to Civil Court by duly depositing the compensation amount in respect of the petitioner’s land in question under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Several facts had been narrated in detail in the affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is stated that originally, her grandfather, namely, Madem Buchedu, occupied the lands in question and having continuous possession and enjoyment over the land by doing cultivation by her grandfather for more than eight decades. Her grandfather expired three decades back. Thereafter, the petitioner and her father are in the possession and enjoyment of the lands in question by raising agricultural crops from all these decades without interference of any authorities or any third party. While it be so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh wanted to acquire the lands in question for construction of Indira Sagar Project (Polavaram Project) by issuing land acquisition notification in question in respect of petitioner’s land by showing the name of the unofficial respondent, who is a non-tribe though she and her father belongs to Scheduled Tribe, they are only entitled to get the right or title over the land in question, which is situated in scheduled area. No non-tribe is having right or title over the land in question. While it being so, the unofficial respondent with his political, man and muscle power managed the revenue authorities and his name was shown in the revenue records by manipulating including showing his name in the notification in question and without conducting award enquiry as per the land acquisition Act, the 1st respondent going to pay the compensation amount of the land in question in favour of the unofficial respondent is nothing but violation of principles of natural justice and also opposed the Articles 19, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. As against the arbitrary action of the 1st respondent, the petitioner have no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. It is also stated that the petitioner filed an application before the Tahsildar, Kunavaram for issuance of details of the land in question and also entries in the revenue records, a copy of the said representation is also communicated to the 1st respondent. In that connection, the 1st respondent issued a notice in Rc.No.A/13/2008, dated 20.01.2009 directing the petitioner to appear and produce relevant documents before him in connection with the acquisition of the land in question in Survey No.16/2 AA. A copy of the said notices is also filed with this writ petition. Ultimately, the 1st respondent without conducting any enquiry, from time to time, adjourned the matter and ultimately the matter is adjourned to 13.08.2009. Though the entire revenue records stands in the name of the petitioner’s grandfather being a scheduled tribe, how the unofficial respondent’s name shown in the notification without any Revenue records, though the petitioner is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands in question without verifying the actual position of her, the 1st respondent is going to close the award enquiry without following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act and the 1st respondent going to issue the compensation amount in favour of the unofficial respondent by way of giving cheques in routine manner due to the political influence of the unofficial respondent. In such circumstances, to safeguard her interest over the land in question due to the said urgency, the petitioner filed instant writ petition seeking a direction not to disburse the land acquisition amounts in question in favour of the unofficial respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition or pending enquiry before the 1st respondent by duly referring the matter to the Civil Court. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached this Court praying for the relief, which has been specified supra. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, several of the averments had been denied. A specific stand has been taken by the 1st respondent that the petitioner never cultivated the land at any point of time after conducting the award enquiry on 27.11.2008. The petitioner approached the first respondent on 12.01.2009 and filed an objection petition. She was issued with a notice to produce documentary evidence with support of her claim. Though sufficient time was granted, she failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of her claim. Finally, the matter was adjourned to 03.08.2009. On 13.08.2009, the counsel for the petitioner has attended their office and filed a Vakalat stating that this Court granted the order of Status Quo in W.P.M.P.No.21792 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.16598 of 2009, dated 12.08.2009. Several other facts have also been narrated in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4. Those averments had been specifically denied. It is stated that the 3rd respondent and his brother were granted Ryotwari Patta in respect of the land in Survey No.23/1 admeasuring Hc.6-22 acres situated at Venkatayapalem Village, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District by the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam in Case S.R.No.2155/77 by his order dated 22.04.1980 and in partition between brothers, they got the land Ac.3.50 cents in Survey No.23/1 towards their share which was notified for acquisition under the said Notification. These lands lie in Venkatayapalem village, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District and the village is part of the Venkatayapalem Zamin Estate, which was taken over by the Government on 10.09.1952 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam examined the claim of the 3rd respondent and his brothers for grant of Ryotwari Patta under 1st proviso to Section 7(1) of A.P. Regulation 2 of 1970 and after thorough enquiry and after examining the documents filed by the claimants, the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam granted Ryotwari Patta in respect of the above said lands in Case S.R.No.2157/77, by his order dated 22.04.1980, in favour of four brothers. In the partition of the property among our brothers, they got Acs.3.50 cents in Survey No.23/1 situated at Venkatayapalem Village, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District. Therefore, the land mentioned in the above said notification in Survey No.3/1 admeasuring Acs.3.50 cents belongs to them and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land without let or hindrance by anybody. They were also granted Ryotwari Patta and Pattadar Pass Book and they have mortgaged the property to a Bank and obtained loan. The Land Acquisition Officer having examined the documents pertaining to the above said lands and having been satisfied that they were the Patta holders of the land in issue, notified that land for acquisition showing their name as Patta Holder in the above 4(1) notification. Therefore, there is no defect or illegality in the impugned notification and the petitioner does not have any manner of right or title over the said land to claim compensation. It is also stated that in so far as the 4th respondent is concerned, he is the son of the 3rd respondent and one of the shareholders in his joint family property. So far they land in Survey No.15/2 admeasuring Acs.3.20 cents situated at Venkatayapalem Village, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District is concerned, for this land Ryotwari Patta has been granted by the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam in favour of him in Cases S.R.No.2157/77 by his order dated 22.04.1980. In this order the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam, granted Ryotwari Patta to a total extent of land Hc.5.09 ares in Survey Nos.5/1, 7/3, 15/2 and 18/2 situated at Venkatayapalem Village, Kunavaram Mandal, Khammam District. These lands lie in Venkatayapalem Zamin Estate, which was taken over by the Government on 10.09.1952 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam examined his claim for grant of Ryotwari Patta under 1st proviso to Section 7(1) of the A.P. Regulation 2 of 1970 and after thorough enquiry and after examining the documents filed by him, the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam granted Ryotwari Patta to him in respect of the above said lands by his order dated 22.04.1980 in Case S.R.No.2157/77. In partition of the property, the 4th respondent got the land admeasuring H.1.28 ares (Acs.3.20 cents) in Survey No.15/2 situated at Venkatayapalem Village, Kunavaram Mandal of Khammam District towards his share. Therefore, the 4th respondent is the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.3.20 cents in Survey No.15/2, which is notified for acquisition from the 4th respondent, and no tribal interest is involved in this property. Therefore, there is no defect or illegality in the impugned notification in publishing the name of the 4th respondent as Patta holder of the said land. The 4th respondent got Pattadar Passbook also. Therefore, the petitioner has no any manner of right or title over the above said land. Hence she has no right to claim any compensation for the land in question. Several other facts have also been narrated. It is no doubt true that in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, specific stand has been taken that the petitioner was given liberty, but however, petitioner was unable to produce the documents to substantiate her claim. In the light of the facts and circumstances, especially taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a tribal lady, this Court is inclined to give one more opportunity to her. Let the writ petitioner approach the 1st respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from today by filing all the documents and other material, if any, to substantiate her claim and let the 1st respondent receive such further objections and the documents and material, if any, to be placed by the writ petitioner and also hear the writ petitioner and also 3rd and 4th respondents in this regard and decide the matter in accordance with law, within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (P.S.NARAYANA, J) October 27, 2009 Bvv