IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8009 of 2008 Between: 1 Vempalli Kasim Saheb S/o. Late Papa Saheb R/o. NTR Colony, C.K. Dinne Village & Mandal, Kadapa Districft. 2 Gundluri Siddaiah S/o. Peeramma R/o. NTR Colony, C.K. Dinne Village & Mandal, Kadapa Districft. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Revenue Divisional, Officer, Kadapa, Kdapa District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of he respondent in passing the impugned order dt. 10.03.2008 vide Ref. No.E/246/2006, without taking into consideration of prevailing market value of the land in question in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1307 revenue ( Assign.I ) Department Dt. 23.12.1993, G.O.Ms.No. 1391 dt. 30.10.2007 and also the orders dt. 28.01.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court WP No. 1049/2008, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently quash the impugned order dt. 10.03.2008, while directing the respondent to fix the comppensation on the basis of the prevailing market value and also in terms of the of G.O.Ms.No. 1307 Revenue ( Assign.I ) Department dt. 23.12.1993, G.O.Ms.No. 1391 dt. 30.10.2007 and also the orders dt. 28.01.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 1049/2008, in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. It is directed against the notice dt. 10.3.2008 of the respondent intimating that pursuant to the Judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 1049 of 2008 dt, 24.1.2008, the compensation amount as stipulated in the notice will be paid to the petitioners in respect of their lands taken over for provision of house sites under ‘Indiramma Scheme, II Phase’, Kadapa District. The father of the 1st petitioner and mother of the 2nd petitioner were assigned lands in C.K.Dinne village of Kadapa District, of different extents on 16.2.2002. The assignees were in possession of the property since the assignment and till their death. The petitioners being the legal heirs entered into possession by inheritance. Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds were also issued to the petitioners by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer, C.K.Dinne. By an order dt. 30.6.2004, the Mandal Revenue Officer, C.K.Dinne resumed the assigned lands on the ground that the original assignees were either disentitled to assignment or (in case of the original assignee Peeramma, the mother of the 2nd petitioner) she failed to cultivate the land. Another reason stated in the order dt. 30.6.2004 is that the lands are proximal to Azad Nagar colony and are needed for the public purpose of allotting house sites. Against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, C.K.Dinne dt. 30.6.2004, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer which was dismissed by an order dt. 3.4.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Joint Collector, Kadapa. While dismissing the revision by an order dt. 24.11.2007 and confirming the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer resuming the lands, the Joint Collector, Kadapa directed payment of exgratia including for a bore well dug by the 1st petitioner in the land assigned to his father as well as solatium on the market value, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1307 Revenue Department dt. 23.12.1993. The order of the Joint Collector, Kadapa dt. 24.11.2007 was challenged before this Court in W.P.No. 1409 of 2008. This writ petition was disposed of on 24.1.2008 by a learned single Judge of this Court with an observation that in view of the decision of a Larger Bench of this Court in P.Malliah vs. the Government of Andhra Pradesh [2006 (2) ALT 742] the order of the Joint Collector, Kadapa directing payment of exgratia, solatium and additional market value for the lands is proper and that resumption for public purposes of the assigned lands is unassailable. The writ petition was disposed of declaring that the petitioners are entitled to compensation i.e. solatium, additional compensation and interest in addition to exgratia in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1307 dt 23.1.1993. By the order dt. 10.3.2008, the respondents fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 1.20 lakhs per acre, borewell at Rs. 38,525/-. 30% exgratia and 12% additional compensation for the stipulated period and thus awarded a sum of Rs. 2,93,298/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs. 2,90,922/- to the 2nd petitioner. Contesting the basis for calculation of compensation, this writ petition is filed. The petitioners, if in the circumstances stated above have a grievance with regard to the basis for computation of the market value, additional market value or solatium in addition to the exgratia, for the lands as directed by the orders of the Joint Collector, Kadapa and as per the observations of this Court in W.P.No. 1049 of 2008 may proceed to a civil court of competent jurisdiction for ascertainment of the true market value by marshalling documentary and oral evidence, as advised. May be a reference is not available under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, since no award is passed. But even so, the remedy by way of a civil suit is not prohibited. The remedy of recourse to a civil court of competent jurisdiction in the absence of any legislative prohibition or bar of a remedy before a civil court, is always available to a citizen in respect of a disputed question of fact or a dispute of a civil nature. A proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution on affidavit evidence is inappropriate to adjudicate and pronounce upon such disputed questions of fact, both as regards the efficacy of the process and as an aspect of efficient division of labour, for efficient administration of justice, a citizen is required to seek relief before appropriate court of initial jurisdiction and not to a court of the highest jurisdiction. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a civil court of competent jurisdiction in case of any subsisting grievance as to the compensation. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 21.7.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 8009 of 2008. Dated: 21.7.2009.