THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.6578 of 1997 Dated:09.09.2010 Between: Peddinti Rama Reddy and others .. Petitioners And Andhra Pradesh State Government, represented by District Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.6578 of 1997 ORDER: The petitioners filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to redeliver the land admeasuring Acs.13.42 cents in Survey Nos.35/1, 35/2, 35/3 and 37/1 situated at Banam Village, Srikakulam District, pursuant to the orders of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No.5 of 1987, dated 25.11.1991. The Writ Petition was admitted by this Court on 23.06.1997. Unfortunately all these years counter affidavit has not been filed. When this Court insisted for such exercise, counter affidavit is filed, which was sworn on 30.06.2009, by the District Collector, which inter alia states as follows. It is respectfully submitted that on surrender of the land by the declarant the land was taken possession in favour of the Government and in terms of Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, the land has to be assigned to landless poor persons and therefore, inconsonance with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 the land which was taken possession as surplus land was assigned in favour of seven landless poor persons and since the land is inheritable as on today the legal heirs of the original beneficiaries numbering about thirteen in all are in possession of the land. It is respectfully submitted that under Rule 10(A) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1974 whereas a result of fresh determination of excess land and on such re- determination, if the declarant is found to be non- surplus land holder the land which was earlier surrendered as surplus land, has to be retransferred or redelivered in favour of the declarant. In the instant case as already stated supra, the claim of the petitioners was upheld by the Land Reforms Tribunal as confirmed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and therefore, they are entitled for re-delivery of the land. However, under sub rule-4 of Rule 10(A) in case the District Collector considers that the resumption of the land from the allottee or transferee is likely to cause undue hardship to him, the District Collector shall after obtaining the necessary permission from the Government, pay the amount in respect of the land in lieu of transferring the land. This Court heard counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Land Reforms. There is no dispute in view of the appellate order upholding the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled for redelivery of the land, which is already taken possession as ceiling surplus land. There is also no dispute that in view of Rule 10(A)(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (the Rules), the redelivery would cause undue hardship to the persons to whom the land has already been allotted and therefore, the declarants as heirs are entitled for compensation in lieu of the land taken delivery. The legal position is not disputed. In view of the counter averments admitting the right of the petitioners for redelivery of the land and also Rule 10(A)(4) of the Rules which enables the District Collector to pay the compensation in lieu of the land taken delivery after obtaining approval of the Government, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the State Government to grant necessary approval to the District Collector. Thereafter the compensation for the land shall be paid to the petitioners. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. The Assistant Government Pleader is directed to communicate the copy of the order to the respondents immediately. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J 09.09.2010 KH