IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 762 of 2002 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated ______ in WP NO : 20302 OF 1994 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ganapam Ramanjulu Reddy S/o Obul Reddy R/o Vinjamuru Village, Udayagiri Taluk, Nellore District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Commissioner of Survey & Settlement and Land Records Andhra Pradesh Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nellore District Nellore. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vinjamuru, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.J.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.762 OF 2002 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is ﬁled against the order dated 16.11.2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.20302 of 1994. The said writ petition was ﬁled by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari by calling for the entire records in File No.L1/73/87 dated 06.11.1993 on the ﬁle of the ﬁrst respondent therein and to quash the said proceeding by directing the ﬁrst respondent to ascertain the compensation in accordance with the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.4191 of 1976 and Writ Petition No.828 of 1980. According to the writ petitioner, the then Zamindar of Sri Kalahasti graned a lease patta in the year 1895 to the predecessor the writ petitioner and others on permanent basis. As disputes arose between the Zamindar and the lessees, which resulted in civil suits in O.S.No.553, 554 and 556 of 1906 ﬁled by the Rajah of Sri Kalahasti against lessees. On 26.04.19977, the parties compromised the matter and a compromise decree was passed accordingly. It reads as under: “That the lessees should pay at the rate of Rs.0.12-0 per gorru for the lease hold lands and in case the lessees raised dry crops in any extent therein they should pay at the rate of Rs.1-0-0 per gorru therefore and with other conditions.” It is also further contended before us by thelearned counsel appearing for the appellant that It is the case of the writ petitioner and other lessees claimed patta under Section 11(A) for the leasehold property and after conducting enquiry, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Oﬃcer, Nellroe, in his proceedings No.SR.11-A/374/59 dated 30.04.1960 and the said proceedings were conﬁrmed by the Board of Revenue in its proceedings in Rt.No.3788/61 dated 06.12.1961. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue in its proceedings No.P.2-2462/65 dated 06.09.1968 issued notices to the lessees to show cause as to why the grazing land in question which was perpetual lease for the purpose of pasturage to the lessees’ predecessor in title should not be cancelled and subsequently determined the perpetual leasehold rights granted in favour of the lessees in its proceedings in B.P.Mis.88/69 and directed the parties to take steps for ascerainment of compensation. In pursuance of the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue, an enquiry has been conducted and the writ petitioner also participated and adduced evidence about the average realizations out of the leasehold property at Rs.4,044/- per annum before the land was taken from the writ petitioner. The landholder also claimed that he was entitled to compensation. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.4191 of 1976 was ﬁled and the same was allowed by this Court directing the ﬁrst respondent to determine the reasonable amount of income, which an ordinary prudent owner or manager would have derived from the said lands. This Court further direction to make an enquiry with regard to the three succeeding fasli years following the year of termination and to determine the average net income for the said fasli years and then determine the compensation payable to the petitioner. Even though the matter was remanded, the ﬁrst respondent rejected the claim for compensation by its order 30.05.1979. Aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petition No.828 of 1980 was ﬁled. This Court by its order held that 30.05.1979 directing the ﬁrst respondent to ascertain the compensation on the basis of the income that would have been fetched in the succeeding faslies following the year of termination. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, again the ﬁrst respondent by its order dated 06.11.1993, after conducting enquiry, rejected the claim of the writ petition for compensation. Questioning the said order, the above-said writ petition has been ﬁled, which was dismissed under the order impugned in the present writ appeal. It is argued before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that even though this Court has directed the ﬁrst respondent in Writ Petition No.4191 of 1976 followed by Writ Petition No.828 of 1980, the ﬁrst respondent uttely failed to ascertain the compensation after conducting enquiry with regard to the three succeeding fasli years following the year of termination. A perusal of para 13(a) of the order dated 06.11.1993 passed by the ﬁrst respondent herein goes to show that as per the compromise decrees, the lessee is not entitled to derive any income and cancellation of the lease does not entitle him any compensation. Further a reading of para 13(b) thereof shows that lease was terminated only in March, 1969 and according to the writ petitioner he was in possession till 1958 but he has not derived any income from 1950 to 1969 and that when the lessee has not derived any income for 19 years before the cancellation of the lease, the question of paying any compensation on the ground of cancellation of lease does not arise. The above facts seemed to have not been brought to the notice of this Court in the other two writ petitions, which is apparent from the reading of the orders passed by this Court in the other two writ petitions. Even a perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned single of this Court goes to show that the above facts have not been brought to the notice of this Court in Writ Petition No.20302 of 1994. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the as per paras 13(a) and (b) of the order dated 06.11.1993 passed by the ﬁrst respondent herein the compromise decree contains a clause that the lessee is not entitled to derive any income and cancellation of lease does not entitle him to any compensation. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation as sought for, which is against the compromise decree. For the above reasons, we do not ﬁnd any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.20302 of 1994. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J 25th August, 2008. VGSR