THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31023 of 1997 Dated 13th June, 2011 Between: Dr.V.Vasumathi Reddy and others …Petitioners And The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence, Research & Development, New Delhi and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Ashok Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri A.Rajender Kumar For Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud Counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 5: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in initiating appropriate proceedings for payment of compensation in respect of Ac.1.03 guntas in Survey No.149 of Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners are owners of Acs.11.21 guntas in Survey No.149 of Jillelaguda Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. An extent of Ac.1.17 guntas of land was acquired for inner ring road by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority vide proceedings, dated 22.09.1986. Out of the remaining extent of land, Acs.7.16 guntas of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the use of the central defence research laboratory, namely, Defence Metrological Research Laboratory (DMRL), in the year 1994. Separate acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of Ac.1.31 guntas of land. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to the balance extent of land, which the petitioners claim to be admeasuring Ac.1.03 guntas and according to the respondents, it is Ac.0.37 guntas. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the respondents have taken possession of the land to an extent of Ac.1.03 guntas, along with Acs.7.16 guntas, they have not paid compensation. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is inter alia averred that in pursuance of the requisition sent by the Defence Estate Officer, A.P., Secunderabad for acquisition of the land on permanent basis, the State Government has issued memo, dated 27.08.1984, directing to acquire the lands under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. As the said proceedings were set aside by this Court, which received affirmation by the Supreme Court, fresh requisition emanated from the Defence Estate Officer leading for acquisition of Acs.56.10 guntas of land in various survey numbers of Karmanghat and Jillelaguda Villages. That Acs.11.21 guntas pertain to Survey No.149 of Jillelaguda Village, out of which, an extent of Acs.7.16 guntas was notified for acquisition leading to passing of an award, dated 19.05.1994 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As regards the claim of the petitioners that the respondents have left out Acs.1.03 guntas, while notifying the land for acquisition and that the same is in their possession, it is stated in the counter affidavit that the Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad has sent requisition for acquisition of land to an extent of Acs.2.12½ guntas in Survey No.149 vide letter, dated 18.11.2004, that the said requisition was sent to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, who has demarcated the land and sent letter, dated 02.07.2005, which contains the following details: Sl. No. Particulars Extent of land 01 Total extent of Sy.No.149 Acs.11.21 02 Land Acquired for inner Ring road by LAO, HUDA, vide Proc.No.LA/268/82, dated 22.09.1986 Acs.01.17 03 Balance before passing of award by SDC LA (G) Hyderabad Acs.10.04 04 Land acquired for DMRL by SDC LA (G) Hyderabad, vide Proc.No.K/2136/90, dated 19.05.1994 Acs.07.16 05 LA Proc.Initiated in SDC LA (Inds), Hyderabad, file No.D/1041/04 Acs.01.31 06 Covered pathway to graveyard existing in Sy.No.150 Acs.00.37 07 Total of Sl.Nos.2 to 6 Acs.11.21 On the basis of the above information sent by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, it is averred in the counter affidavit that no land Ac.1.03 guntas is in possession of DMRL. At the hearing, it is not disputed that land shown at Sl.No.6 referred to in the letter, dated 02.07.2005, of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, which is re-produced above, represents the disputed land. As noted above, while it is the case of the petitioners that the actual extent of land which is in occupation of DRML is Ac.1.03 guntas, the respondents pleaded that the said land is covered by pathway to graveyard existing in Survey No.150 and therefore, no compensation need be paid to the petitioners. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the above disputed question of fact. However, when the present writ petition is pending, wherein the petitioners made claim for payment of compensation, the respondents ought to have given notice to them before undertaking survey and demarcating the lands. The respondents cannot rely upon the survey that has taken place behind the back of the petitioners and conclude that the extent of Ac.0.37 guntas, which is the disputed land, is covered by pathway to graveyard. While there is no dispute regarding the existence of land, except to the extent of a minor variation in its extent, the dispute is confined only to whether the said land is in possession of DRML and the same is being used by it or it is being put to use as pathway to graveyard. For resolving this issue, I am of the opinion that a fresh survey after notice to the petitioners is needed. Therefore, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to take steps for fresh survey of the land in order to demarcate the exact extent of land left out in Survey No.149 for acquisition and also to know whether this land is being put to use by DMRL or by the general public as pathway to graveyard existing in Survey No.150. Respondent No.3 shall also be given a notice before such survey is undertaken. On receipt of survey report, respondent No.4 shall take a decision by passing an appropriate order on whether the land in question shall be notified for acquisition or not and communicate the same to the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the order, if any, passed by respondent No.4, they shall be free to approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36322 of 1997 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th June, 2011 VGB