IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25229 of 2011 Between: Smt. Khasim Bee … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.K. Raj Kumar for Sri K. Narsi Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-4: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.5: None Counsel for respondent No.6: Ms. M. Vidyavathi This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25229 of 2011 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in raising constructions over the land admeasuring Ac.4.87 cents in Sy.No.622-2 of Kanekal Village and Mandal, Anantapur District, without acquiring the same under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) or resuming the same, as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioner pleaded that her husband was assigned the abovementioned extent of land by the Tahsildar of Rayadurg on 07.01.1969, that her husband died 25 years back leaving behind her as his legal heir and that since then she has been enjoying the said land. The petitioner alleged that during March 2011, some third parties tried to encroach the land and dispossess her, that when she filed a civil suit, she realised that she has lost the original patta and she made an application for issuance of a duplicate copy of the patta and that on 04.07.2011, respondent No.4 has issued a print form of Praja Vani, wherein it is stated that a decision was taken on the petitioner’s application, but the same was not communicated so far. The petitioner’s grievance is that during the last week of July 2011, some persons claiming through respondent No.5 came to the land and cut the trees, that when she sought to resist, she was informed that the land was given by the Government to the Forest Department and that thereafter it was handed over to respondent No.5 for construction of a Junior College. The petitioner assailed the above action on the ground that the same infringes her legal and constitutional rights. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, the Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar (Full Additional Charge), Kanekal Mandal, Anantapur District has inter alia stated that as the petitioner’s husband violated the D-Form patta conditions, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kanekal, resumed the land to the Government and same was entered in the diglot book vide proceedings Rc.No. (B)1031/1981, dated 04.02.1983 and that following the resumption order, the Forest Department was handed over the property for being developed under Social Forestry Scheme by raising eucalyptus trees. It is further stated that A.P. Social Welfare Society issued requisition for handing over the possession of the said land and accordingly advance possession was given to the Social Welfare Department free of cost on 18.07.2010 as per order, dated 08.07.2010, of the District Collector, Anantapur. Accordingly, the counter affidavit has denied the claim of the petitioner that she is in possession of the property. Respondent No.6, which is entrusted with the contract work for construction of a College building complex by respondent No.5, has stated that vide G.O.Ms.No.1649, dated 20.08.2011, the State Government alienated the abovementioned land in favour of A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Society, Kanekal free of cost for construction of Residential Social Welfare Junior College at Kanekal in terms of BSO-24. A copy of the said G.O. is filed by respondent No.6 along with its counter affidavit. I have perused the copy of the diglot, wherein an endorsement was made to the effect that the Tahsildar, Kanekal, vide proceedings Rc.No.(B)1031/1981, dated 04.02.1983, has resumed two pieces of land i.e., Ac.4.86 cents standing in the name of Abdul Hameed and Ac.4.87 cents standing in the name of the petitioner’s husband. No reply affidavit has been filed controverting the allegations contained in the counter affidavits. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has not filed the original assignment patta, no piece of evidence is filed before this Court to show that she has been in possession of the property in question. In the absence of such evidence and the assertion of the respondents that the land was resumed as far back as the year 1983, the plea of the petitioner that she continues to hold rights over the assigned land cannot be accepted. The petitioner failed to make out any case of violation of any of her legal or constitutional rights and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 08.09.2011, is vacated and WPMP.No.31030 of 2011 is dismissed and WVMP.Nos.3788 and 3579 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 11.11.2011 ES