IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10975 of 2008 Between: Maddala Apparao, S/o. Narayana, R/o. Nidanam Doddi, Anakapalli, Visakhaptnam District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam-530 002. 2 The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam-530 002. 3 The Land Reforms Tribunal cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhaptnam 530 002. 4 The Authorised Officer, Land Reformas Tribunal Collectorate Buildings, Visakhapatnam 530 002. 5 The Special Deputy Collector, L.A, SEZ., Land Acquisition, Collectorate Buildings, Visakhapatnam 530 002 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents not to acquire the writ schedule lands without paying necessary compensation as may be determined under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act to the petitioner: declaring that the lands are the exclusive property of the petitioner, that they cannot to deemed as Government lands without any enquiry as contemplated under the land Acquisition, Act and that the acquisition of the private lands of this petitioner without recourse to the provisions of the LA Act is highly unjust improper contrary to law and violative of the Fundamental Rights and the principles of natural justice, and to grant such other or further orders which the Hon'ble Court may be please to deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.RAMALINGA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10974 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner claims to be owner of an extent of Acs.23-79 cents of land in Sy.No.159 of Moturu Palem village of Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. His grievance is that without any reference to him, or without initiating any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”), the respondents are trying to take possession of the said land. It is also alleged that efforts are being made to pay compensation to third parties for the said land, treating them as assigned lands. With this factual background, the petitioner seeks a declaration that the scheduled lands are exclusive property of the petitioner and that they cannot be acquired without initiating the proceedings under the Act. Sri D. Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no dispute as to the origin of title and the manner in which they have accrued to the petitioner, and places reliance upon certain documents, such as, Settlement Register, etc. He contends that even if there is any dispute as to the title, the same needs to be resolved, by making a Reference under Section 30 of the Act, after initiating proceedings under the Act. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that as long as no proceedings are initiated under the Act, in respect of the said land, the petitioner cannot complain of distribution of compensation to any one, and at any rate, the relief claimed by the petitioner can be granted, only in a suit. Though couched in somewhat different terms, the relief claimed by the petitioner is akin to the one of declaration of title. The same needs appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and it would be possible only in a suit filed in a Civil Court. Further, the complaint as to the payment of compensation to third parties on the one hand, and absence of proceedings under the Act, on the other hand, do not go together. All these controversies can be resolved, if only the petitioner approaches a Civil Court with appropriate pleadings. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner, to work out his remedies in a Civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 22nd May 2008 PAN