THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10629 of 1998 Dated:07.02.2008 Between: Medari Veera Narasaiah, and others. …Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, rep.by its Secretary, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderbad, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10629 of 1998 ORDER: The three petitioners are allegedly owners and possessors of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in Survey No.65 of Mandapalli Village of Duggondi Mandal in Warangal District. They also allege that they have residential houses on the lands. These lands were allegedly assigned to them in 1982 by the Tahasildar, Narsampet, vide proceedings No.B3/3124/77. The lands were acquired by the fourth respondent for excavation of L-1 of D.B.M – 40 of Sri Ram Sagar Project (SRSP) in 1990 as the Distributory Channel of the Project was passing through their lands. They allege that in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity), the lands were shown as proposed for acquisition. The consent award was passed, but compensation was not paid for the petitioners’ lands. The petitioners, therefore, filed the instant Writ Petition. The Special Deputy Collector (SRSP), Land Acquisition Unit, filed the counter affidavit denying the ownership of the petitioners. It is stated that the land admeasuring Ac.1.31 guntas in Survey No.65 was notified for excavation of L-1 of SRSP, but later it came to light that the land belonging to the pattadars, namely, Gulam Rasool (Acs.3.38 guntas) and Yakub Hussain (Ac.1.00), was already acquired to an extent of Acs.4.38 guntas by the Tahasildar, Narsampet, vide Award No.B9/3124/77, dated 28.03.1980. Therefore, the acquisition for an extent of Ac.1.31 guntas was withdrawn. It is further stated that the acquired land was allotted to landless poor persons as house sites and an extent of Ac.0.05 cents each was allotted to the petitioners. The allegation that Ac.1.31 guntas was assigned to them is denied. The petitioners were not in possession of the land, and therefore, payment of compensation does not arise. This matter was initially heard on 30.01.2008. As the petitioners did not enclose any documents in proof of their claim that they are entitled for entire extent of Ac.1.31 guntas, this Court adjourned the matter directing the learned Counsel for the petitioners to produce the relevant documents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader was also directed to produce the record. When the matter was listed yesterday, learned Counsel for the petitioners sought time. Today an adjournment is sought, but this Court is not inclined to grant adjournment, as the record is available. After perusing the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader it becomes clear that the petitioners herein along with 61 others were assigned house sites to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents each in Survey No.65/2, and therefore, their entire case is based on falsehood and the allegations are not supported by documentary evidence. It is well settled that when writ affidavit averments are not supported by documentary evidence, the petitioners cannot claim title. When the petitioners failed to prove the title, they are not entitled for compensation under the Act. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07.02.2008 vs