THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Appeal No. 569 of 2004 ORDER(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) : The petitioner’s grievance, in short, is that Sri. P Subba Reddy and Sri. B Raghava Reddy, who were holding several extents of land in R. S. No. 75 and certain other survey numbers, held Ac 90.00 cents of land in excess of their Ceiling limits. In the guise of surrendering Ac 80.00 cents of land in R.S. No. 75/4 and Ac. 10.50 cents in R.S. No. 75/1, these two persons had surrendered the entire extent of land of Ac 90.50 cents in R.S.No. 75 alone and, as a result, 22.00 acres of land belonging to the petitioners, which was well within their Ceiling limits, was surrendered by the said Sri. P Subba Reddy and Sri. B Raghava Reddy. The petitioners sought a direction from this Court to give them alternative land of an equal value or pay compensation in lieu of the action of the respondents in this regard. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Joint Collector it is stated that the land, in respect of which the father of the writ petitioners was granted patta, was occupied by persons belonging to political parties and that it could result in social unrest and law & order problems if eviction proceedings were initiated. In the order under appeal, the learned single Judge observed that, in their haste and enthusiasm to gain popularity, the respondents had instantly granted pattas in respect of 90.00 acres, whereas they did not act for decades together in demarcating and delivering possession of the land to the father of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge further noted that the respondents in the writ petition, (appellants herein), ought to have taken steps to cause necessary survey and to identify the land which was required to be surrendered and, in such event, even the beneﬁciaries could have been shifted to the lands so identiﬁed or the petitioners could have been put in possession of such land. This Court found the action of the respondents in not evicting the occupiers as unreasonable, irresponsible, arbitrary and unlawful and opined that the respondents had abdicated their duties and, to a certain extent, had become parties to the unlawful state of aﬀairs. The writ petition was allowed with the following directions: “a) To identify the land which was required to be surrendered by Pellakuru Subba Reddy and Bandi Raghava Reddy and to undertake necessary veriﬁcation as to whether the said two declarants have surrendered any land that was earmarked to the father of the petitioners and if so, to recover an equal extent of land from them from other Survey Nos. after issuing notice to them. b) If it emerges that they did not surrender the land which was earmarked for the petitioners, the respondents shall demarcate the land as directed by the Settlement Oﬃcer in his letter dated 29.11.1969 and deliver possession of the same to the petitioners, if necessary, by removing the encroachments or by canceling pattas. c) If any alternative land is available to be delivered to the petitioners and if the respondents chose to ﬁnd it diﬃcult to recover the possession of the land in R.S.75/1, it shall be open to the respondents to deliver possession of such land to the petitioners. d) If none of these alternatives are found feasible, the respondents shall pay compensation to the petitioners for Ac 22.00 cents of land in R.S.75/1 according to the present market value. This exercise shall be completed within 3 months from the date of this order.” It is necessary to note that neither Sri P Subba Reddy nor Sri. B Raghava Reddy, nor the persons in whose favour pattas were granted were arrayed as respondents in the above Writ Petition. As such no relief could have been granted behind their back. On the other hand if, indeed, the petitioners land had been surrendered by others, and if their assertion that the land, of an extent of Ac 22.00 cents, was within their Ceiling Limit were to be accepted, then it would amount to the petitioners being deprived of their property without authority of law. It is necessary to note that this court in WP No. 5199/1993 had passed the following order: “ In view of the above circumstances, the question involved in this writ petition is whether there is any demarcation of the land of the petitioner and the land allotted to the 3rd parties in pursuance of surrender made under the A. P. Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act. The Revenue Oﬃcers have to demarcate and ﬁx the boundaries, then only they have to allot the land to the 3rd parties who are landless poor. In view of the above said circumstances, the concerned Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners dated. 9.1.90 and if the demarcation of the land of the petitioners and the land surrendered by Subba Reddy ie., Ac 90.50 cents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and then only take further action in the matter.” The said order required the Revenue Oﬃcers to demarcate the land and ﬁx the boundaries. Despite the orders of this Court, the respondents (appellants) failed to do so. Ends of justice would, therefore, be met if the respondents are directed to comply with the order in W.P.No. 5199/1993, which has attained ﬁnality and to resurvey the land and demarcate the boundaries. It is needless to state that, on such demarcation, if it is found that the lands of the petitioners had been surrendered by others, the respondents shall take necessary action in accordance with law. It shall also be open to the petitioners, on completion of re-survey and demarcation, and in case these lands are found to have been surrendered by others, to agitate their rights in accordance with law. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly. With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T MEENA KUMARI J 4.9.2008 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J kvrk THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Appeal No. 569 of 2004 (Order of the Division Bench made by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) 04th September 2008