HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 602 OF 2011. DATED 21ST JANUARY, 2011. BETWEEN Sri Molugu Mahipal Reddy and ors …Petitioners and The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad and anr. ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA WRIT PETITION No. 602 OF 2011. ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioners seek Writ of Mandamus to declare the order of 1st respondent passed in proceedings Lr.No.G1/7463/08, dated 7.1.2001 as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.222 of Kapra Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. By the impugned proceedings, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District -- first respondent directed the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District -- second respondent to restore the entries in respect of the subject land as belonging to the Government in the revenue records and further directed to evict the encroachers and report compliance thereof. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject land by virtue of the compromise decree dated 19.4.1988 passed in O.S.No.295 of 1984, on the file of learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Basing on the said decree, revenue proceedings, dated 22.9.2009,together with pattadar pass books and title deeds were issued in their favour by the second respondent after following the due procedure as per law. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.8316 of 2008, dated 18.4.2008 and W.P.M.P.No.32668 of 2010 in W.P.No.8316 of 2008, dated 8.10.2010 relying on the earlier orders of this Court in Writ Appeal No.187 of 2007, dated 27.2.2007 categorically held that the subject land is the Government acquired land and as such the present writ petition is not maintainable. Perused the case file. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petiton No.8316 of 2008, dated 18.4.2008 categorically held that the subject land and other lands were acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as early as in the year 1966 and possession of the subject land was also taken under Section 17 of the Act in the year 1967 itself. Thus the subject land is vested with the State Government being free from all encumbrances. Further it is well settled that once the lands were acquired by the Government after following the due procedure contemplated under law for the public purpose, no provision under the L.A Act enables the Government to divest such lands to its original owners. It was further held by the Division Bench of this Court that the withdrawal memo issued in 1972 by the Government is without power and partition of the said lands in O.S.No.295 of 1984 does not confer any right on the petitioners to claim the said land. It is apposite to reproduce the order of the Division Bench of this Court, which attained finality, for better understanding of the matrix of the case on hand. It reads thus: “The petition averments, in brief, are that petitioner is the grandson of late M. Papi Reddy who was original owners of the above mentioned lands and the same was acquired by the State under Land Acquisition Act vide notification No.310 dated 17.11.1966 from M. Ranga Reddy, M. Papi Reddy, M. Venkat Reddy and M. Yella Reddy. Later, the possession was taken over on 4.1.1967 under Section 17 of the Land Acquisitions Act after expiry of 15 days after serving notices on the respective owners under Section 9 of the Act. Accordingly, the lands in question were vested with the State free from all encumbrances. On 22.5.1972, a memo no.703/FII/72-1 was published de-notifying the subject lands along with other lands in Sy.nos.216 to 219, 227 to 229 and award was passed for left over lands vide File No.B/1577/66 dated 29.9.1969 and possession of de-notified lands was handed over in 1972 and the owners are in possession and revenue entries were also changed accordingly. Later, the lands were partitioned vide OS No.295 of 1984 and sold the same to various third parties and houses were constructed by the respective purchasers and have been residing. It is further stated that the 5th respondent addressed a letter in File No.B/534/2001 dated 30.3.2001 to the first respondent stating that the revenue entries pertaining to land in Sy.Nos.216 to 221, 227 to 229 were illegal as there was no legally valid withdrawal and requested to restore the name of the Director of Industries. It is further stated that the Joint Collector vide order in File No.D5/1278/2001 dated 24.7.2004 and this Court in WP No.8404 of 2005 and in WA No.187 of 2007 confirmed the revenue entries in favour of the owners in respect of lands in Sy.No.216 to 221, 227 to 299 by rejecting the request of the Mandal Revenue Officer. It is also stated that the entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject lands were not confirmed by the Joint Collector and this Court as the subject lands are not the subject matter of those orders and the authorities are holding that the subject lands cannot be withdrawn as the possession of the same has already been taken over by the Government way back in 1967. It is also stated that in spite of it, the revenue authorities are interfering with the possession of the land though the same is private land but not Government land and also without any right and without consideration of the fact that the subject lands were already withdrawn by the Government in 1972. Heard and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the material discloses that the subject lands along with some other lands were acquired by the State in 1966 and possession was also taken over in 1967 itself after following due procedure under Land Acquisition Act duly serving notices under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the subject land is vested with State free from all encumbrances. Further, it is settled law that once the lands were acquired, no provision enables the Government to divest the lands to its original owners. It is to be seen that whether the lands withdrawn were divested to its original owners by the Government in the year 1972 by issuing a memo and publishing the same in a Gazette. Once the Land Acquisition Act is silent with regard to divesting the land to its original owners after acquisition, the same cannot be done by way of a Memo. Since it is pleaded by the petitioner that the Government divested the land by way of Memo this Court feels that the Government acted without any power and partition of the said lands in O S No.295/84 does not confer any right to claim the said lands. A Division Bench of this Court headed by Sri Justice G.S.Singhvi (as he then was) has taken the above opinion in W.A.No.187 of 2007. Confirmation of Revenue entries in favour of petitioner and others for land in other Sy.Nos.216 to 219, 227 to 229 do not confer any right to claim subject lands. Therefore, the above orders would not confer any right to claim the subject land as of private lands. Hence, no direction to be given to respondents not to evict the encroachers from the subject lands. Further, it seems that no public interest is involved in this matter and it is only the interest of the individual and as such it deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.” Furthermore, in W.P.M.P.No.32668 of 2010 in W.P.No.8316 of 2008, dated 8.10.2010, which was filed for clarification of the order dated 18.4.2008, it was held that the proceedings of the second respondent, dated 14.10.1998 issued in respect of the lands in Sy.No.216 to 219, 227 to 229 of Kapra Village in favour of M.Shamala and others, and, also in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.244 and 245 to an extent of Ac.1.00 and Ac.1.04 gts respectively in favour of M.Sharat Chandra Reddy have become final. However, it wais made clear that the subject lands are the Government lands and further the notices under Section 7-A of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act were already issued for eviction of the encroachers. I deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the aforementioned order, which reads thus: “……the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, on suo moto revision in Case No.D5/1278/ 2001 under Sec. 9 of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattadhar Passbook Act, 1971 taken against the letters written by the Mandal Revenue Officer, dated 9.2.2001 and 30.3.2001, has confirmed the proceedings No.B/3971/98 (B/2274/96) dated 14.10.1998 in respect of the lands in Sy.No. 216 to 219, 227 to 229 of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy in favour of M.Shayamala, M. Suresh Chandra Reddy, M. Sharath Chandra Reddy and M. Vikas Reddy and also in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.244 and 245 to an extent of Ac.1.00 and Ac.1.04 guntas respectively in favour of the petitioner. It is this order, which was assailed in W.P. No. 8404 of 2005 and this court by order dated 11.12.2006 dismissed the said writ petition. Challenging the said dismissal order, the respondent No. 11 in the said Writ Petition, had filed W.A. No. 187 of 2007, which was also dismissed following the judgment dated 15.02.2007 passed in W.A. No.160 of 2007. Thus, in view of the findings recorded in W.A No. 187 of 2007 and the order dated 24.07.2004 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in File No. D5/1278/2001, in respect of the lands in Sy.No.216 to 219, 227 to 229 of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy in favour of M. Shayamala and three others apart from the lands which were purchased from M.Yella Reddy i.e. in Sy.Nos. 244 and 245 to an extent of Ac.1.00 and Ac.1.04 guntas respectively, in favour of the petitioner, have become final. In view of this finding, it goes without saying that the lands in Sy.No. 215 and 222 to an extent of Acs.11-12 guntas and Acs. 16-10 guntas respectively of Kapra village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, are the Government lands, which are the subject lands in W.P. No. 8316 of 2008. Therefore, this court has rightly observed so in the order sought to be clarified. When once it was held that the lands in Sy.No. 215 and 222 are not private lands, no directions can be given to the respondents, at the instance of the petitioner not to evict the encroachers over the said lands. That apart, since the District Collector, Ranga Reddy in Letter No. G1/7463/2008 dated 16.12.2008, has held that the proceedings No.B/3971/98 (B/2274/96) dated 14.10.1998 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, in favour of Smt. M.Shayamala and her sons has become final, the respondents shall implement the same in revenue records, as per law. Further, the District Collector directed the authorities to change the revenue entries in favour of the Government in respect of the lands in Sy. No.215 and 222, by evicting the encroachers from the said lands in terms of Sec. 7-A of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. As such the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents be prevented from taking action in evicting the encroachers in respect of the said Government lands at this belated stage of two years, cannot be countenanced.” In view of the above orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court, it is clearly established that the subject lands, including the land in Sy.Nos. 215 and 222 of Kapra village are the Government lands. Therefore, the respondents have rightly initiated the necessary action to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds and entries in 1-B pertaining to the lands in Sy.Nos. 215 and 222 of Kapra village. Since the land in Sy.Nos. 215 and 222 are Government lands, issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds as per the ROR Act 1971 does not arise, and even if Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds are issued in respect of the aforesaid government lands, the same are ab initio void. Therefore, there is no illegality on the part of the respondents in initiating the action to restore the entries in the revenue records in favour of the Government and also for eviction of the encroachers from the subject lands. The petitioners being well aware about the said fact through the proceedings of the respondent authorities and the orders of the Division Bench of this Court, confirming the same, filed this Writ Petition once again, which is nothing but, abuse of the process of law. Needless to state, it is always open to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate action, as per law, against the encroachers to evict them from the subject-lands. For the foregoing reasons and in the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 21st January, 2011. Msnro